Object oriented programming deemed irrelevant(ogirardot.wordpress.com) |
Object oriented programming deemed irrelevant(ogirardot.wordpress.com) |
It should be noted that Alan Kay invented the Smalltalk-72 language, which is very different from the Smalltalk-76 and onward versions of the language, which were rather invented by Dan Ingalls. The quote applies to Kay's vision of OO, which is much closer to Smalltalk-72 than any other OO language. Smalltalk-76 onwards instead are closer to the concepts invented in 1967 for the Simula language. Also note that the first documented application of the term "object-oriented" for a programming language was in the 1976 publication by Jones and Liskov (see e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36879311). Concerning the generally accepted meaning of OOP see e.g. https://ethw.org/Milestones:Object-Oriented_Programming,_196....
> We should encourage all software engineers to strive for knowledge, learn, and develop critical thinking rather than forget all kinds of rational behavior, considering only the hype and prejudice of our times
All too true, and increasingly forgotten.
There is no such thing as "generally accepted meaning of OOP". If there was we would not have every online debate about why OOP sucks turning into "OOP is code structured in a way I proclaim to be OOP and that proves my point that OOP haters are wrong" by "OOP junkies".
Only if you reject the idea that science in particular and humanity in general can produce something like "generally accepted facts." I think that I'm in good company when I consider the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) with its more than 400k members in over 160 countries a reliable source for the accepted state of the art. The fact that there are always people who doubt the accepted state of the art and prefer to present their own assumptions as truth does little to change this.
This is what makes Erlang (gen_servers) my favourite OOP language! And that's only partially joking.