OOP in the discussion was undefined prior to me choosing a definition. Smalltalk-style OOP is quite significant to the topic as what are probably the only respe

OOP in the discussion was undefined prior to me choosing a definition. Smalltalk-style OOP is quite significant to the topic as what are probably the only respected ORM toolkits (CoreData, ActiveRecord) lean heavily on the facilities provided by what you call the Smalltalk-style OOP paradigm. I might even go as far as to say that the active record pattern is unusable without Smalltalk-style OOP. Other languages have certainly tried, but it gets janky really quickly. Now, it's okay if OOP means something different to you. Words are just tools to help with communication, not some source of pride or identity. That is why definitions were laid out to ensure that we weren't just talking past each other. Despite this making you believe I am young, in my 30 years of development experience I've learned that you can't assume everyone uses the same definition. In software, it is actually quite rare to find any common definition across any sizeable group of developers. There is no logical reason to leave a discussion because what OOP meant to me differs from what OOP meant to you. The OOP talk that was present early in this thread didn't even carry into the remainder of the conversation about ORM, so it is moot anyway. The reality is that this conversation has reached a dead end because there is nothing left to talk about. We've established that ORM and query building are different operations, which rounds out the entire topic of the thread, and that's that.