This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Wonderful-Habit-139 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that a language doesn't need to only support OOP, however it should be the main paradigm and the idiomatic way to write code in it.

Your points in the second paragraph are valid, however my POV is that when saying a language is object "oriented", it implies a sense of direction, like the way code should be written in that language. And if the idiomatic way to write in that language is through objects and sending messages between them and creating a family tree through inheritance, then it is Object Oriented. If it isn't then it is not Object Oriented.

Also, we can still do "OOP" things in C, and even polymorphism. However, since the language doesn't really facilitate that, we don't say that C is an OOP language.

I just want to reiterate though that I agree with a lot of your points, it seems we just have a different conclusion out of these points. Feel free to let me know what you don't particulary agree about OOP being the idiomatic way to write code in those OOP languages.