@ewolff @stilkov @ufried "I made up the term 'object-oriented', and I can tell you I didn't have C++ in mind" << Guess who said that!
1
@ewolff @stilkov @ufried So I think that actors are closer to the original meaning of OO than Java ever can get.
2
@ewolff @stilkov @ufried I think the key difference is asynchronicity.
2
@hseeberger @stilkov @ufried If we claim Actors are OO then OO is a pattern and can be done in almost any language - or in Microservices.
2
@ewolff @hseeberger @stilkov @ufried it can. I was amazed to see how some of the C-guys organize their code in a strictly OO-way.
1
@codepitbull @hseeberger @stilkov @ufried That is my point. Kay was surely aware of such things. I believe at least I was.
1
@ewolff @codepitbull @hseeberger @ufried Going back to the original point, I don鈥檛 thing there鈥檚 anything wrong with OO per se
1
2
@ewolff @codepitbull @hseeberger @ufried There is quite a lot wrong with Java鈥檚 way of doing OO, though.
1
2
@stilkov @codepitbull @hseeberger @ufried If Java is wrong it is just because the Smalltalkers failed to defeat C++.
1
@ewolff @stilkov @hseeberger @ufried it's not the best tech that wins but the one with the biggest backers.
2
Replying to @codepitbull
@codepitbull @ewolff @hseeberger @ufried That used to be true, yes. Not sure it still is, though.

Sep 19, 2015 路 9:18 PM UTC

1