Difference of Alan Kay's OO vision

[Ian Joyner]

One comment Alan Kay made about OO languages like C++ and Java and the difference to his vision is that he envisaged something more than just ADTs. I think I got an insight into what he meant is that objects are not about data, but about a functional interface. That does not seem too different to me as long as the Uniform Access Principle (which is exclusive functional access through the interface).

Since Eiffel is ADT-based, does his dismissal include Eiffel.

I thus think ADTs might be better renamed Abstract Functional Types.

Anyway, I wrote a Quora answer on this (since Alan did not answer it) on my guesses as to what he meant, and how the different views might relate.

Do any others have insights? Please have a read and make comments via this group.

https://www.quora.com/Why-don-t-any-famous-programming-languages-implement-what-Alan-Kay-considers-to-be-real-OOP/answer/Ian-Joyner-1

Ian

[Ulrich Windl (Google)]

Hi!

Basically I think data and functions are equivalent, but that doesn't answer how to manage state. As practical programming needs state, that's essential.

Ulrich