3 ms·
Could you clarify what you mean by "most pure object oriented language"? This seems disingenuous to me, since if you ask the users of a dozen different OO lang
by willismichael 14y ago
Could you clarify what you mean by "most pure object oriented language"? This seems disingenuous to me, since if you ask the users of a dozen different OO languages what "OO" means, you'll get a dozen different answers.
http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html
- ek 14y agoMy best guess would be object-oriented in the Smalltalk/Self/etc. sense as other posters have alluded to. It's a hard distinction to understand/qualify. Jim Copelien gave a keynote at SPLASH this year about this distinction that left many people confused, but the big takeaway seemed to be that people limit the expressiveness of real object-orientation by instead focusing on classes and prototypes and whatnot. What he sees as a potential embodiment of real object-orientation (together with Trygve Reenskaug, inventor of MVC) is a paradigm they are calling DCI (Data, context, integeration).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data,_Context,_and_Interaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data,_Context,_and_Interaction
- lars 14y agoNeither Smalltalk nor Self had interfaces, and never needed them. Let's be clear, interfaces give nothing to a dynamic language. If you bring them into a dynamic language, you are essentially inventing code contracts - which can be useful, but they serve a fundamentally different purpose than a Java interface.