Talk:Object-oriented language

General:

[I feel this article should have mentioned: Smalltalk, C++, class, message-passing vs method calling, CLOS, Java. Whilst it is something I know about, I'm not yet expert enough to do a good rewrite -- drj]

1:

This doesn't make much sense.

2:

This doesn't make much sense either.

3:

This description describes some OO languages, but certainly not all of them. It assumes the message-passing model. What of generic functions? Consider CLOS. In CLOS, objects / classes do not have methods. Method dispatch is handled by the types of any or even all function arguments. -- eoc

4:

What of multiple inheritence? ("from _an_ ancestor object type")

5:

[this sentence makes no sense. What is this the third item of? I could rewrite it to say "OOP allows a way for a tolerant mechanism to adapt its objects' methods during run time", but I'm not sure what either sentence means anyway. Where should criticism like this go? If I confident of an edit to make I would just make it -- drj]

7: Why is this here? Why describe Delphi in this way but not C++? I don't see the point.

There are three articles on Object Orientation in wikipedia right now: Object-oriented language, Object-oriented, and Object Oriented Programming. It seems to me that two of these should mostly just link to a third. I just found wiki yesterday; I'm not sufficiently sure of this to just go and do it. Anybody else agree with me?

I just rewrote Object-oriented, and aesthetically that's where I think the discussion belongs.  fuzzrock