[seanmcdirmid]

Competent entity systems are OOP, entity is synonymous with object (bring out some other object-like system, and a theasurus is usually used to find another word for object). You just don’t use classes, but there have been plenty of classless OOP systems since the Treaty of Orlando. Anything with a nounish tint will lean more OO than functional (of course, taxonomies are never perfect).

Objects have always been about modeling and design, a way to talk about a problem using language that is more similar in how you might talk about it naturally. Object-thinking is much more important than anything else. There are many different ways to spin this, but most game engines and simulation environments benefit from this in spades (and have ever since Simula 2).

[loup-vaillant]

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

[seanmcdirmid]

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-vaillant]

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.

[seanmcdirmid]

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

[loup-vaillant]

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.

[seanmcdirmid]

We aren’t really arguing about that though. When people exclame that OOP is dead, they use Java/C++ as their strawmen, but that doesn’t mean objects are intrinsically flawed or really dead. It’s like declaring you hate FP because Haskell isn’t to your liking.

My original comment was that ECS is just another kind of object system. It has objects, it conforms to ontological object thinking, why would that not be OOP? Just because it isn’t Java/C++? Or would you argue that OOD and OOP are separate things?