How do you define "object-oriented"?

Dan Rozenfarb drozenfa at
Sat Apr 27 15:40:53 UTC 2002

Jecel Assumpcao wrote:
> I don't see any practical difference 
> between "inheritance" and "delegation"

Me neither.  I pointed that out just to make a
difference between 
what Self has and what is commonly referred by
(including Wegner=B4s classification), that is, Class
Anyway, I see inheritance as a useful, although not

> > With this definition, Smalltalk is not *pure* OO.
> Because of the classes? See "Smalltalk with
Examplars" or CoDA for 
> Smalltalks with classless objects.

No.  With "definition" I meant the previous one:
communicating through message passing".
One example: Smalltalk accesses variables directly,
not by message 
passing.  OK, it=B4s not a big deal, but illustrates
my point.

> But I prefer not to fight for any particular meaning
of "OO"

I tend to agree.  It is not all that important having
an exact 
definition.  But my scientific spirit makes me love
the purist 
approach that led to great research pursuing a clean
and pure OO 
(such as the Self project).  This utopic and
minimalist sense is 
much related with simplicity, that is one of the
things I love the 
most about objects, and what IMHO made Smalltalk what
it is.

Dan Rozenfarb

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list