4 ms·
> That is, after all, what sets "object-oriented" apart from having objects alone. I wouldn't say so, most object-oriented languages don't work like Objective-
by MaxBarraclough 7mo ago
> That is, after all, what sets "object-oriented" apart from having objects alone.
I wouldn't say so, most object-oriented languages don't work like Objective-C/Smalltalk. Today, I think most programmers would agree that inheritance is the defining feature of object-orientation.
- 9rx 7mo agoOkay, that's what sets what was classically known as "object-oriented" apart. Understandably, language evolves. If OO means something different today, what do most programmers call what used to be known as OO? I honestly have never heard anyone use anything else. But I am always up for refreshing my lexicon. What did most programmers settle on for this in order to free up OO for other uses?
- Apocryphon 7mo agoThen what does it mean if "composition over inheritance" is also taught as a good practice in OO?
- MaxBarraclough 7mo agoThat's a rule-of-thumb to help beginners in making judgement calls. It doesn't mean inheritance should never be used.
- Apocryphon 7mo agoTrue, but if the defining feature of something is a feature you should use sparingly, doesn't that mean other features are more definitive?