4 ms·

Questionable. Qt signal/slot extensions were undeniably created to add OOP concepts to C++ for the sake of GUIs. You might, if you stretch hard enough, be able

Questionable. Qt signal/slot extensions were undeniably created to add OOP concepts to C++ for the sake of GUIs. You might, if you stretch hard enough, be able to make a case that Objective-C emerged for the sake of GUIs. But what else beyond that? Smalltalk most definitely influenced how we thought about GUIs, but never really solidified itself as the place to develop GUIs. Class-based, non-OOP, languages seemed to be where most GUI development happened. And in large part were suited to the task. There was little need to introduce OOP. There was COM and the like, which perhaps can reasonably be considered object-oriented, but only at a higher level of abstraction. The programming was not object-oriented. OO, but not OOP.

dventimihasura 3y ago
You're free to use your own private definition of OOP, but nobody else is obliged to join you.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Agreed. Which is why we are sticking to the definition as has been already defined. Anything else, while perhaps interesting for a completely different discussion, would be clearly off-topic for this one.
  - dventimihasura 3y ago
    > Which is why we are sticking to the definition as has been already defined. Has already been defined where exactly? Yes, evidently you believe it has been defined in the article, but where exactly in the article did that occur. Please be precise.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      First thing you read. That's where definitions go. Obviously you are not going to go on at length about something and then "Oh yeah, and by the way, this is what I meant by X. Gotcha!" Of course it is going to be the first thing you read.
      - dventimihasura 3y ago
        > First thing you read. That's where definitions go. Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the article author that this was their intention? After all, the first thing you read in the article is a quote, but then there's a second quote later from a different person, which doesn't specifically address the first quote. Is that also a definition? No, in reality, you don't know the author's definition. Neither of us does, which is why we have to make an educated guess (an "inference"). You've guessed evidently that the author's definition is identical to Kay's. Well, let's consider your confidence around that guess. When the author discusses other topics not included in that definition, like inheritance and polymorphism, does that tend to increase or decrease your confidence in your guess? Finally, just as I'm not obliged to use your definition and you're not obliged to use mine, neither of us is obliged to use the blog article author's definition either. I certainly didn't agree to that, and there's good reason not to, which is that there are other people involved: the OOP critics. The article author accuses OOP critics of not understanding OOP. Personally, I think that gives us a reason to use THEIR definition of OOP, not the author's. That is, unless the author's argument "they don't understand OOP" is essentially "they're using the wrong definition of OOP." But then, since there is no right or wrong definition of OOP, that could only mean, "they're using a different definition of OOP from the one I'm using", which they're free to do. To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you?
        randomdata 3y ago
        > When the author discusses other topics not included in that definition, like inheritance and polymorphism, does that tend to increase or decrease your confidence in your guess? Increases. After all, it is ultimately about how people do not understand OOP. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. > To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you? Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?
        dventimihasura 3y ago

dventimihasura 3y ago

You're free to use your own private definition of OOP, but nobody else is obliged to join you.

randomdata 3y ago
Agreed. Which is why we are sticking to the definition as has been already defined. Anything else, while perhaps interesting for a completely different discussion, would be clearly off-topic for this one.
- dventimihasura 3y ago
  > Which is why we are sticking to the definition as has been already defined. Has already been defined where exactly? Yes, evidently you believe it has been defined in the article, but where exactly in the article did that occur. Please be precise.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    First thing you read. That's where definitions go. Obviously you are not going to go on at length about something and then "Oh yeah, and by the way, this is what I meant by X. Gotcha!" Of course it is going to be the first thing you read.
    - dventimihasura 3y ago
      > First thing you read. That's where definitions go. Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the article author that this was their intention? After all, the first thing you read in the article is a quote, but then there's a second quote later from a different person, which doesn't specifically address the first quote. Is that also a definition? No, in reality, you don't know the author's definition. Neither of us does, which is why we have to make an educated guess (an "inference"). You've guessed evidently that the author's definition is identical to Kay's. Well, let's consider your confidence around that guess. When the author discusses other topics not included in that definition, like inheritance and polymorphism, does that tend to increase or decrease your confidence in your guess? Finally, just as I'm not obliged to use your definition and you're not obliged to use mine, neither of us is obliged to use the blog article author's definition either. I certainly didn't agree to that, and there's good reason not to, which is that there are other people involved: the OOP critics. The article author accuses OOP critics of not understanding OOP. Personally, I think that gives us a reason to use THEIR definition of OOP, not the author's. That is, unless the author's argument "they don't understand OOP" is essentially "they're using the wrong definition of OOP." But then, since there is no right or wrong definition of OOP, that could only mean, "they're using a different definition of OOP from the one I'm using", which they're free to do. To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you?
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > When the author discusses other topics not included in that definition, like inheritance and polymorphism, does that tend to increase or decrease your confidence in your guess? Increases. After all, it is ultimately about how people do not understand OOP. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. > To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you? Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?
        dventimihasura 3y ago