Comment by dventimihasura | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dventimihasura | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Increases. After all, the remainder is about how people do not understand OOP.

The author says this about "subtyping" and "inheritance", terms that do not appear in Kay's definition at the top:

Another term that – while not technically necessary – is often associated with OOP is inheritance.

Subtyping is not exclusive to OOP

Evidently, subtyping and inheritance are not mutually exclusive of OOP and in fact often co-occur with OOP. The author certainly doesn't say that they in and of themselves--or "polymorphism" for that matter--causes people to misunderstand OOP (though they might misunderstand the terms themselves, which could cause confusion). You and I don't know for sure what the author's definition of OOP is, and yet you're more confident that it doesn't include subtyping, inheritance, and polymorphism because the author mentioned them? Is that your final answer?

> Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?

What is it you often say? Oh right: "Did you even read" what was written? In this case I didn't say:

To sum up, the author's argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you?

Instead I said

To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you?

The careful reader will note that I was asking about YOUR argument, not THE AUTHOR'S ARGUMENT. So no, I didn't get confirmation from the author that this was their intention. I was seeking confirmation from you that this was your intention. Well? Is it?

> You and I don't know for sure what the author's definition of OOP is

And that's fine. We don't need to know the author's definition. That was deferred to Kay, which stands to reason as Kay defined the term. The author is focused on letting it be known that people, which includes the author himself, don't understand OOP.

In fairness, Kay, who appears to be a person, has made it clear that not even he understands OOP. The only thing he knows for sure is that C++ is not it. Inheritance and polymorphism are core concepts in C++, so given that they were brought up, we have proof positive that the article was written from the perspective of not understanding OOP (in case the title wasn't already clear enough; the author could not have been much more explicit).

> Instead I said – To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you?

To which I asked: "Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?"

As I am the author, I already know the answer, but I wanted to hear the other side of the story. Is there some reason for your strange diversion to avoid answering the question? Are you afraid of what we might learn if you were to become earnest with us? Or did you just not bother reading again?

> We don't need to know the author's definition. That was deferred to Kay

We don't know that it was deferred to Kay. You just assumed that it was.

> To which I asked: "Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?"

I apologize. How foolish of me to assume you would notice that I assiduously avoided doing anything other than to refer to you by "you" and to refer to the blog article's author as "the author." Let me rephrase.

As a critic of OOP, my definition of OOP includes inheritance, polymorphism, and classes. An example of a programming language that fits this definition is Java. While my criticisms don't depend on those properties, nevertheless that is the definition that I personally use. Now, based on your comments, I believe your argument is:

as a critic of OOP you are not using the defintion of OOP that I use

That's what I believe your argument is, but I'm interested in your beliefs about your own argument. What do you believe your argument is?

> How foolish of me to assume you would notice that I assiduously avoided doing anything other than to refer to you by "you" and to refer to the blog article's author as "the author."

I did notice, indeed. But when I called myself "the author", I was referring to myself.

Is it that you want me to call myself "you" instead? I don't think that works. It is not clear what you are trying to convey here.

Obviously I was the author. Were you under the impression someone else authored the work in question? If so, who? If so, how?

> As a critic of OOP

Was "bingo" meant to a criticism? While this is a fun story that you have randomly decided to share, I fail to see the pertinence.

> What do you believe your argument is?

I have no beliefs on the matter. Logically, once a believe is formed, there is no longer value in discussing it. What more can be learned once you are certain of something? Only before beliefs are formed can you gain insights by talking to other people. Beliefs are built on discussion. Discussion always has to come first.

But maybe you have some pet definition for "belief" that contradicts the common usage recorded in the dictionary?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com