Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by randomdata 653 days ago
> In most OO languages, message passing is just a fancy term for function calling.

Having objects does not make a language oriented to those objects. By your definition C++ would be considered OO, but we know it is not. Kay quite explicitly stated that C++ is not OO. I expect you're thinking of Object-based programming.

If you look at the actual definition of OO, it basically is just a laundry list of Smalltalk features. It is probably not usable outside of Smalltalk for that reason, despite Joe Armstrong's playful insistence that Erlang is the only OO language in existence.

You might be able to include Ruby and Objective-C (and, iff you're really stretching, Swift with @objc enabled), but that's about the extent of it.
1 comments
layer8 653 days ago
I don’t really care much about what Kay says. His view of OO isn’t what caught on. C++ as a descendant of Simula, which is considered the first object-oriented programming language, certainly supports OO. (C++ is really a multi-paradigm language.)

Object-based means OO without inheritance or subtyping.

link
randomdata 653 days ago
Simula long predates OO. To call it an OO language is laughable.

Simula has objects, but that does not imply that the objects are oriented.

link
layer8 653 days ago
The inventors of Simula disagree: http://kristennygaard.org/FORSKNINGSDOK_MAPPE/F_OO_start.htm...
link
randomdata 653 days ago
Implying that the inventors of Simula had a time machine?

I am inclined to think the more logical explanation is that they didn't actually take OO back in time and that Simula isn't an OO language at all (perhaps confused by the first OO language being created with Simula?), but admittedly I'm rooting for the time machine! Look forward to you telling us more about it.

link