[Misdicorl]

Its not the length of the array. Its using things like array[20]. Yes that exists pre-OO and outside of OO, but its the foundational aspect of OO and one of the strongest use cases.

Sorry for the way I communicated- I was tired and should have reconsidered.

[weberc2]

> Sorry for the way I communicated- I was tired and should have reconsidered.

No worries, it happens. :)

> Its not the length of the array. Its using things like array[20]. Yes that exists pre-OO and outside of OO, but its the foundational aspect of OO and one of the strongest use cases.

I'm not sure what you're getting at then. Indexing into an array? Are you making a more general point than arrays? I'm not following at all, I'm afraid.

[Misdicorl]

I think my argument is basically that arrays are effectively object oriented abstractions in most languages.

You aren't responsible for maintaining any of the internal details, it just works like you want it to. My example was with the getter for the item at index 21 (since you had specifically called out useless getters), but equally well applies to inserting, deleting, capacity changes, etc.

[weberc2]

> I think my argument is basically that arrays are effectively object oriented abstractions in most languages.

I think I see what you mean, although I think it's worth being precise here--arrays can be operated on via functions/methods. This isn't special to OO; you can do the same in C (the reason it's tedious in C is that it lacks generics, not because it lacks some OO feature) or Go or Rust or lisp.

These functions aren't even abstractions, but rather they're concrete implementations; however, they can implement abstractions as evidenced by Java's `ArrayList<T> implements List<T>`.

And to the extent that an abstract container item access is a "getter", you're right that it's a useful abstraction; however, I don't think that's what most people think of when they think of "getter" and it falls outside the intended scope of my original claim.