[gordianknot]

Built-in data structures are a big point of categorization of langs on my end. To me, the defining feature of Java is its classical structure. If you got rid of classes, you'd have a different language (in the interface sense). And interface is really all I'm talking about.

I'm basically just asserting that objects (should) == hashtables. This is quite literal in JavaScript. Other languages bend the metaphor in different directions, and obscure it to that no one even knows what "object-oriented" really means beyond particular idiosyncratic syntax in this language or that.

PG of course talked about this before, in Why Arc Isn't Especially Object-Oriented:

> I've done a lot of things (e.g. making hash tables full of closures) that would have required object-oriented techniques to do in wimpier languages ...

I'd argue that he was employing genuine object-oriented techniques, but just didn't have classical syntax and didn't consider what he had an "object." Other languages make a point about it, and use special syntax, which fogs the whole thing. Perhaps some people in "OO" mindsets have the kind of naivete that C-only hackers I've met have about first-class functions.

Actually, I just realized the whole reason C++, Java, C#, and co. have "methods" in the first place is just compensation for not having first-class functions you can stick in a hashtable.

[anamax]

If objects == hash tables, any language with decent hash tables, including lisp, has objects that you're perfectly happy with. Lisp also has other data types, but their existence means that lisp has more power, not less.