There are so many definitions of OOP out there, varying between different books, documentation and articles.

What really defines OOP?

  • macniel@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    What kind of different defintions have you came across?

    In Essence, OOP: you describe with your code Classes and how those classed Objects interact with each other. Classes can be inherited from other Classes and or implement Interfaces (Interface, Traits, Protocol) so you know how derived classes can be interacted with even though you don’t know the concrete class until runtime execution.

    The tradeoff would be the stringent nature of OOP: you need to have Objects, otherwise it’s just functional/procedural programming with extra steps.

    • Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Javascript is generally considered OOP, but classes weren’t widely available till 2017.

      Inheritance isn’t fundamental to OOP, and neither are interfaces. You can have a duck- typed OOP language without inheritance, although I don’t know of any off the top of my head.

      Honestly, the more fundamental thing about OOP is that it’s a programming style built around objects. Sometimes OO languages are class based, or duck typing based, etc. But you’ll always have your data carrying around it’s behavior at runtime.

      • macniel@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        JavaScript has been OOP since I can remember due to its prototypal nature. Change something on an inherited prototype, and every descendant also get those changes. And “classes” is just syntax sugar for that prototype mechanism.