[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?

[loup-vaillant]

Your taxonomy is not useful.

Of course ECS has an object system, it simulates objects. Know of any program whatsoever that simulates stuff without having a stuff system? Does that mean it is Stuff Oriented?

By bundling ECS in the OOP umbrella term, you trivialize the fundamental differences between ECS and class/object hierarchies found in older game engines and Qt, and you water down the "OOP" term to the point of meaninglessness. You wouldn't be the first one to do so.

Anyway, ECS wasn't my main point. My main point was, and remains, when someone mentions "OOP" in Hacker News or /r/programming, unless mentioned otherwise they mean C++/Java most of the time. The most notable exception are discussions over the meaning of "OOP".