4 ms·

> OO is not evil, but it also shouldn't be your default solution to everything. With Smalltalk and Objective-C both being effectively dead at this point, that

by 9rx 2y ago

> OO is not evil, but it also shouldn't be your default solution to everything. With Smalltalk and Objective-C both being effectively dead at this point, that really only leaves Ruby (and arguably Erlang) as the only languages that are able to express OO. And neither of those languages are terribly popular either. Chances are it won't be your default solution, even if you want it to be.

igouy 2y ago
J ... J ... Java.
- 9rx 2y ago
  Patrick Naughton came from the Smalltalk world, so Java is definitely inspired by Smalltalk, but he didn't bring along the oriented bits. Its object model is a lot closer to C++'s. To have objects does not imply orientation.
  - igouy 2y ago
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    - 9rx 2y ago
      "I made up the term object-oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind.", said Alan Kay.
      - igouy 2y ago
        That was the easy laughter set-up line. The follow-up seemed to confound the audience. What was the follow-up?
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> and arguably Erlang Curious about your case for this. I don't know a lot about Erlang other than "it's what Elixir is based on" or whatever technical jargon is more accurate. I thought it was functional.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > Curious about your case for this. I was mostly riffing on the time Joe Armstrong, creator of Erlang, said that Erlang might be the only object-oriented language in existence. Although he's not exactly wrong, is he? > I thought it was functional. I think that is reasonable. Objects, describing encapsulation of data, are what define functional. Without encapsulation, you merely have procedural. Of course, that still does not imply the objects are oriented... For that you need message passing. But Erlang has message passing too! So there is a good case to be made that is object-oriented.

by 9rx 2y ago

igouy 2y ago

J ... J ... Java.

9rx 2y ago
Patrick Naughton came from the Smalltalk world, so Java is definitely inspired by Smalltalk, but he didn't bring along the oriented bits. Its object model is a lot closer to C++'s. To have objects does not imply orientation.
- igouy 2y ago
  “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
  - 9rx 2y ago
    "I made up the term object-oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind.", said Alan Kay.
    - igouy 2y ago
      That was the easy laughter set-up line. The follow-up seemed to confound the audience. What was the follow-up?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago

> and arguably Erlang Curious about your case for this. I don't know a lot about Erlang other than "it's what Elixir is based on" or whatever technical jargon is more accurate. I thought it was functional.

9rx 2y ago
> Curious about your case for this. I was mostly riffing on the time Joe Armstrong, creator of Erlang, said that Erlang might be the only object-oriented language in existence. Although he's not exactly wrong, is he? > I thought it was functional. I think that is reasonable. Objects, describing encapsulation of data, are what define functional. Without encapsulation, you merely have procedural. Of course, that still does not imply the objects are oriented... For that you need message passing. But Erlang has message passing too! So there is a good case to be made that is object-oriented.