> > things like method definitions outside classes and so on, I can see > > that now I'll have to reposition it as `not *actually* OO even though > > it looks a bit like it'.
> I can see your point - but isn't it a bit sad to surrender to the cultish > definition of OO? On the other hand - maybe we should start referring > to CLOS programming as "generic function programming" and refer, in > footnotes, to "Cult OO" as a "a severely constrained special case of GFP"
I've tried to make the point to Paul that he is setting up a Java-like strawman of OO, then knocking it down. So what, big deal. So instead of thinking about the useful things OO can provide, he's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Here's a suggestion: stop calling what languages such as Common Lisp and Dylan provide "object-oriented programming". God forbid, don't call it "function-oriented programming", because that will get other people's knickers in a twist. Some years ago I suggested "protocol-oriented programming".