Talk:Object-oriented programming

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Turbo Pascal 5.5 had O.O. when launched in 1989

People should include Turbo Pascal 5.5 in this article. https://www.inf.ufsc.br/~aldo.vw/ICC/TP_55_OOP_Guide.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drout 0 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC) 

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Artisticrush (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Artisticrush (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Common Lisp

Common Lisp is NOT a object oriented language.You can do object oriented programming in Common Lisp (it even has its own set of operators for that: the Common Lisp Object System. Or you can write your own), but you don't have to, and most of the time, you won't need the extra garbage. 77.171.29.82 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. The argument I see here is that because one can avoid doing object oriented programming in Common Lisp, Common Lisp is not object oriented. But that applies to many languages, e.g. C++ can be used procedurally (in its C subset). There is a term in the article "pure OO languages" which is defined as languages where everything is treated consistently as an object, which clearly Common Lisp and C++ do not satisfy. But the general concepts of OO seem present in CLOS. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

But all values in Common Lisp are objects and instances of some class. See for example the integer class. You do not have to write your own classes, still, and you can use normal functions instead of generic functions. But all classes (including structure classes made by defstruct) can be dispatched on by generic functions. I find using classes and generic functions in Common Lisp is useful and not garbage, and certainly people do use those features of CLOS, but "the extra garbage" would not be starting that discussion on the right foot. 150.203.65.55 (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

We could write this more simply

I'm taking an entry-level computer class and I can't make heads or tails of this article. Procedural programming seems simple but I don't know what the teacher means by "objects". 136.223.34.54 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

OOP is complex and vague - it is hard to discuss it concisely. I think the article structure is about as good as it gets. But you are right that the "objects" section does not define objects, I have added a definition. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

انا اول مره 185.133.180.19 (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@136.223.34.54 i agree. this article is written poorly. OOP Is not a complex and vague topic as other says. people make it more complicated than it is. Stevebroshar (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a problem with WP. Perhaps articles are written by subject experts who are used to talking with other subject experts and put things in terms that others can't understand.

Or maybe it is that so many make amendments it becomes an unintelligible mess, like C++.

Or maybe it is because of things like C++ and UML that OO itself has become this mess that it should not be. Ian.joyner (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

OOP helps organise projects, but in a disciplined and mathematical way. You should read Object-Oriented Software Construction. This is true and clean OO, but not one that simplifies the most sophisticated aspects of OO or programming.

An object, in itself is a self-contained computer that handles one kind of data. Objects interact via messages.

Don't get misled by horrors such as C++ or UML. Ian.joyner (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Criticism section no longer present?

In the 'Real-world modeling and relationships' section, a 'criticism' section is referenced. This seems to be no longer present. BartYgor (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, indeed the criticism was added to the section (the Yegge quotes). Mathnerd314159 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)