3 ms·
After reading the comments, I get the impression we (and by proxy, many people?) don't agree on what OO means. There's a spectrum, including "Using classes / st
by the__alchemist 6y ago
After reading the comments, I get the impression we (and by proxy, many people?) don't agree on what OO means. There's a spectrum, including "Using classes / structs", "Not pure functional programming", "inheritance / getters/setters / factories", "everything is a class".
- michaelscott 6y agoI think what OP means in the case of Joe Armstrong's comment is that Erlang follows the original conception of OO, as defined by Alan Kay, in which code is structured as black boxes passing messages and has nothing to do with semantics. It's true though, it's become such a muddy term.