> Additionally, he's run up against the pitfall with OO - it actually lacks a definition I think OO is well-defined. I would define it thus: an object is some

> Additionally, he's run up against the pitfall with OO - it actually lacks a definition I think OO is well-defined. I would define it thus: an object is something with state and behaviour. An OOPL is a PL with facilities for handling objects. These facilities must include (i) specialisation -- either through subclasses or prototypes -- and (ii) method invocation determined at run time, so that for example: someShape.drawOn(aCanvas); their are several drawOn() methods and the one that is executed is determined at run time by the class (or equivalent) of someShape and possibly also by the class of aCanvas.