Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

His definition of object-oriented has evolved continuously; after the 80s, mainly to try to exclude C++, judging by appearance. Smalltalk-72 does not qualify as what he today calls OO, because that requires a constrained sort of variable run-time binding -72 lacked. Some people call what -72 did "object-based".



Where can we find him saying what you describe as "what he today calls OO"?

Where can we find him saying "requires a constrained sort of variable run-time binding"?


Sorry, that would be work.


So, baseless criticism.


So, baseless criticism.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: