News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Zig – Type Resolution Redesign and Language Changes. Parent comment

Re:Zig – Type Resolution Redesign and Language Changes by 9rx on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @08:22PM (#47344554)
Absolutely. That's why it is best to stick to the already established definitions. Kay was quite explicit about what "object-oriented" meant when the term was uttered for the first time; including specifically calling out C++ as not being object-oriented.

And yes, we all know the rest of the story about how the C++ guys were butthurt by that callout and have been on a mission to make up their own pet definition that allows C++ to become "object-oriented" ever since. I mean, who wouldn't want to latch onto a term that was about the unique features of a failed programming language that never went anywhere?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Zig – Type Resolution Redesign and Language Changes by CyberDildonics on Thursday March 12, 2026 @11:11AM (#47351799)
Don't you think it's a bit silly to keep rehashing tribalistic arguments that people moved on from 40 years ago?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Zig – Type Resolution Redesign and Language Changes by 9rx on Friday March 13, 2026 @09:10PM (#47372221)
Once someone offers up the replacement name so that we can continue to talk about what "object-oriented" referred to 40 years ago — and still refers to today, sure. Nobody cares about the exact letters and sounds.

But, until then, no. It is still something we regularly talk about. It needs a name. And lucky for us it already has one — and has had one for 40 years.

[ Parent | on HN ]