[randomdata]

> It's just a struct though, not an object. There's no functions or methods on it

Object-relational mapping was originally coined in the Smalltalk world, so objects were in front of mind, but it was really about type conversion. I am not sure that functions or methods are significant. It may be reasonable to say that a struct is an object, for all intents and purposes.

A pendant might say that what flimsy definition Kay did give for object-oriented programming was just a laundry list of Smalltalk features, meaning that Smalltalk is (probably) the only object-oriented language out there, and therefore ORM can only exist within the Smalltalk ecosystem. But I'm not sure tradition ever latched onto that, perhaps in large part because Kay didn't do a good job of articulating himself.

[freedomben]

Thanks for the thoughts, that's a good point. It certainly makes sense that the "object" merely needs typed properties to qualify.