undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsloup-vaillant8y ago0 comments

First, let us agree on what OOP might even mean.

http://loup-vaillant.fr/articles/taboo-oo

http://loup-vaillant.fr/articles/deaths-of-oop

0 comments

seanmcdirmid8y ago

I prefer the Treaty of Orlando, which is much more inclusive, and underlies our entire community.

http://web.media.mit.edu/~lieber/Publications/Treaty-of-Orla...

It is scary that the broad definition given in the 80s has been supplanted by a narrow “java or C++” definition today. If that what you mean by it, then no we aren’t talking about the same thing. I’ve built plenty of OO systems that don’t correspond to that definition at all, and at any rate, were still considered OO systems by the OO community (at least by the people who attend ECOOP and OOPSLA).

loup-vaillantOP8y ago

When I see "OOP" in a forum today, I assume it means the narrow "Java or C++". And I think that more than 90% of the time, I'm right. If you want to use a different, perhaps better, definition, the onus is on you to mention that you don't talk about the same thing as everyone else.

seanmcdirmid8y ago

So in your view, Self isn’t OO? There is a rich diversity in the object community, there always has been.

loup-vaillantOP8y ago

I didn't say that. Obviously, if you're talking about OO and mention Self in the same sentence, then you mean OO to encompass prototypes. But if you do not mention Self, don't be surprised when most people think you meant C++/Java.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

seanmcdirmid8y ago

I prefer the Treaty of Orlando, which is much more inclusive, and underlies our entire community.

http://web.media.mit.edu/~lieber/Publications/Treaty-of-Orla...

loup-vaillantOP8y ago

seanmcdirmid8y ago

So in your view, Self isn’t OO? There is a rich diversity in the object community, there always has been.

loup-vaillantOP8y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse