[arakyd]

The thing about OOP is that it is described as way to make programming easier because objects are so "intuitive," and the examples for this are all toy simulations with naive object "models." What the post describes, and what everyone who actually does a significant amount of OOP programming eventually figures out, is that the only things OOP makes intuitive are stupid approaches. It's possible to program well in OOP languages, but there's nothing intuitive about doing anything non-trivial well, in any language.

I blame Alan Kay for inventing a new paradigm and then not explaining how it was supposed to be used (it's like Lisp meets biology!), thus allowing it to be taken over by others who filled the vacuum with a multitude of their own (usually half-baked) ideas bastardized implementations, and "software architect" positions.

[curtis]

I think you're right that there's a serious problem with how OOP is described. Why that's so is a full topic in and of itself.

In the case of Alan Kay, I can't help but feel like he was trying to create one thing but actually created another.

[jamesbritt]

"Smalltalk is object-oriented, but it should have been message oriented." -- Alan Kay

http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story...