> So. Language design is not at all the same kind of work it was thirty years ago, or twenty years ago. Back then, you could set out to design a whole language and then build it by your own self, or with a small team, because it was small and because what you would then do with it was small.
Which is not about OO at all. Got an actual quote or is this link really just an interesting but irrelevant non sequitur?
EDIT: For those coming in later who don't feel like clicking random Youtube links, parent post is referencing Steele's talk "Growing a Language".
In particular, note how he talks about growing the language by adding new things to it which are like the existing parts of the language. Contrast that with APL, where the existing parts of the language all had funny symbols, but new things added by the user needed alphanumeric names. In Java the language gives you a bunch of classes and interfaces and whatnot, and you extend the language by defining your own classes and interfaces. You don’t have to do this yourself, of course, since you can include libraries alongside your code. Those libraries can extend the language by defining new classes and interfaces.
As he says:
43:54 Back then, you could set out to design a whole language and then
build it by your own self, or with a small team, because it was small
and because what you
44:02 would then do with it was small. Now programs are big messes
with many needs.
44:07 A small language won’t do the job. If you design a big language
all at once and then try to build it all at once, it will
44:15 fail. You will end up late and some other small language will
take your place.EDIT: You seem to be conflating the two ideas still. OO being created for teams is a different claim than it being good for teams. At most, you could stretch Steele's talk to the second, but not to the first.
A lot of people have said a lot of things about OOP for decades. So looking at the context in which something was said is an ordinary sanity check.