I think I agree with you. However to the parents point: i think the implication is we might be enlightened about why Alan defines OOP the way he does when we contextualize it with Smalltalk, the language in which he used it. That's a fair point.
But again, you're right: most of us aren't familiar with Smalltalk and so find the very idea of reading such papers daunting at best. I think I'll finally try it though ...it can't be that hard of a language to grasp and it may well lead to some insights about why OOP, as defined by Mr. Kay, is defined as such.
> I think I agree with you. However to the parents point: i think the implication is we might be enlightened about why Alan defines OOP the way he does when we contextualize it with Smalltalk, the language in which he used it. That's a fair point.
I absolutely agree that understanding Kay and Smalltalk can help one become a better programmer and give context into the history of OOP. But it can't be interpreted as anything other than a semantic deflection in the context of a response to substantial criticism.
But again, you're right: most of us aren't familiar with Smalltalk and so find the very idea of reading such papers daunting at best. I think I'll finally try it though ...it can't be that hard of a language to grasp and it may well lead to some insights about why OOP, as defined by Mr. Kay, is defined as such.