I think the issue is OOP patterns are one part missing features, one part trying to find common ground for Java, Modula, C++, SmallTalk, that it ends up too broad.
A much saner definition is looking at how languages evolved and how term is used. The way it's used is to describe an inheritance based language. Basically C++ and the descendants.
> one part trying to find common ground for Java, Modula, C++
The primary common ground is that their functions have encapsulation, which is what separates it from functions without encapsulation (i.e. imperative programming). This already has a name: Functional programming.
The issue is that functional, immutable programming language proponents don't like to admit that immutability is not on the same plane as imperative/functional/object-oriented programming. Of course, imperative, functional, and object-oriented language can all be either mutable or immutable, but that seems to evade some.
> SmallTalk
Smalltalk is different. It doesn't use function calling. It uses message passing. This is what object-oriented was originally intended to reference — it not being functional or imperative. In other words, "object-oriented" was coined for Smalltalk, and Smalltalk alone, because of its unique approach — something that really only Objective-C and Ruby have since adopted in a similar way. If you go back and read the original "object-oriented" definition, you'll soon notice it is basically just a Smalltalk laundry list.
> how term is used.
Language evolves, certainly. It is fine for "object-oriented" to mean something else today. The only trouble is that it's not clear to many what to call what was originally known as "object-oriented", etc. That's how we end up in this "no its this", "no its that" nonsense. So, the only question is: What can we agree to call these things that seemly have no name?
> The primary common ground is that their functions have encapsulation
You omitted Smalltalk. Most people would agree that SmallTalk is object-oriented.
But that kinda ruins the common ground thesis.
> Language evolves, certainly. It is fine for "object-oriented" to mean something else today.
pjmlp definition is very fuzzy. It judges object-orientedness based on a few criteria, like inheritance, encapsulation, polymorphism, etc. More checks, stronger OOP.
By that, even Haskell is somewhat OOP, and so is C, assembly, Rust, and any language.
---
What I prefer is looking at it as it's used. And how it's used for appears to be akin to using it as an everyday term fish or fruit.
No one would agree that a cucumber is a fruit. Or that humans are fish. Even though botanically and genetically they are.
Yes, of course you can call objc_msgSend or equivalent in Rust just as you can in C. But you are pushing the object-oriented model into a library. It is not native to the language.
I am talking about Rust OOP language features for polymorphism, dynamic and static dispatch, encapsulation, interfaces.
Which allowed me to port 1:1 the Raytracing Weekend tutorial from the original OOP design in C++ to Rust.
Also the OOP model used by COM and WinRT ABIs, that Microsoft makes heavy use of in their Rust integration across various Windows and Office components.
Absolutely. That's why it is best to stick to the already established definitions. Kay was quite explicit about what "object-oriented" meant when the term was uttered for the first time; including specifically calling out C++ as not being object-oriented.
And yes, we all know the rest of the story about how the C++ guys were butthurt by that callout and have been on a mission to make up their own pet definition that allows C++ to become "object-oriented" ever since. I mean, who wouldn't want to latch onto a term that was about the unique features of a failed programming language that never went anywhere?
Once someone offers up the replacement name so that we can continue to talk about what "object-oriented" referred to 40 years ago — and still refers to today, sure. Nobody cares about the exact letters and sounds.
But, until then, no. It is still something we regularly talk about. It needs a name. And lucky for us it already has one — and has had one for 40 years.
Plenty of OOP architectures can be implemented 1:1 in Rust type system.