> The only way I see out of this endless game of semantics is for someone to canonize the tightrope of practices which are "OOP done right", and then give it a different name.

Our industry has a naming problem when it comes to practices, especially when the practice is subtle and complex but its name is simple and trendy (maybe it's not specific to software, IDK).

Dev teams are mislead into thinking that they can deduce the practice from the name (and maybe a 1h training with a self-proclaimed expert in the practice).

This is how we got aberrations like: - "TDD" devs writing their tests afterwards - "Agile" teams with 6-month release period - "SCRUM" masters that act as classic managers

New names referring to "good/right/trendy" practices are doomed to get claimed by "80% of the industry", in a way that doesn't respect the original practice.

Alan Kay recently said that maybe he should have called it "Message-oriented programming" ( instead of OOP ). While not having "object" mostly eliminate the risk of the "one-class-per-real-world-object" antipattern, we might as well had ended up with other anti-patterns based on wrong interpretation of what constitutes a "message".

This is why I think changing the name of any practice is inefficient. The misunderstanding isn't accidental, it's systemic (Moreover, renaming a practice would probably create even more confusion)

Names that refer to common mistakes wouldn't get claimed ; no team is going to proudly explain to their customer that they're using the "big ball of mud" antipattern, the "scrum but" team organisation, or the "debug later" dev practice.

So maybe we should better canonize OOP antipatterns?