From: Martin Coxall <pseudo.meta@...>
Date: 2006-10-17T17:44:38+09:00
Subject: Re: "Good Ideas, Through the Looking Glass"

> There's a famous story about a similar lecture he gave at Apple, where
> someone else pushed back in a similar way.  If Oberon doesn't have
> encapsulation how can it be object-oriented. In this case, Wirth's
> ultimate rejoinder boiled down to  "who can really say what
> object-oriented means."  To which the questioner responded, "Well, I
> suppose I do, I'm Alan Kay and I invented the term."

I'm not sure he has a moral claim to how the term is used now just
because he invented it. After all, in Kay's mind, C++, Java et al.,
are not Object Oriented languages. But I suspect that most of us here
would say they are.

But I agree with your general point. I read the paper and I have never
before seen so many over-generalisations, straw men arguments and
ad-hominen fallacies outside of a party political broadcast.

Martin