Xref: utzoo comp.lang.smalltalk:469 comp.lang.c++:808
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!jss
From: jss@hector.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Object Orientation and The Truth
Message-ID: <10077@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 15 Feb 88 16:26:21 GMT
References: <2792@pitt.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: jss@hector (Jerry Schwarz)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 22

In article <2792@pitt.UUCP> jonathan@pitt.UUCP (Jonathan Eunice) writes:
>The Truth is that "object-oriented" is a bad name.  A really,
>really bad name.  A horrible name.  It's far too long to say or
>write naturally.  

I agree with Eunice's distaste for the phrase "object-oriented".
(Although "truth" isn't a concept I would apply to tastes.) But for
different reasons.  The thing that distinguishes "object-oriented"
approaches from others is not the presence or emphasis of objects
(modifiable data structures), but the use of inheritance.

Inheritance is just about the only major feature that Smalltalk and
C++ have in common.

CLU (for example) provides extensive support for "objects", but does
not have inheritance, and so it is not usually regarded as "object
oriented".

Thus the phrase "object-oriented" is misleading.

Jerry Schwarz
Bell Labs