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?