How do you define "object-oriented"?

Kevin Fisher kgf at
Fri Apr 26 18:10:18 UTC 2002

I have a bit of a question...I'm just sitting down to learn Python right
now and I'm finding it a bit too C/C++ like for my liking.  What strikes
me about Python is it's claim of "object orientation"--and yet, it has
atomic types like 'int' and 'char' that are not objects  (shades of
C++ and Java).

I've read the quote on from Alan that (roughly paraphrased)
says "I invented the term object-oriented, and C++ was not what I had in

Is it safe to say that something like Python is not truly object-oriented?
Or rather--if it's not objective right down to the smallest particle,
can it be called object-oriented?  I realize this could be a somewhat
flameworthy question...but I don't mean it to incite flames.  

(and then there's the other question about why all new languages go out of
their way to be so C-like...a personal beef of mine. :)

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list