On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:31 AM Ayan George <a...@ayan.net> wrote: > > For me this is as much if not more of a communications issue than a technical > one. It seems like the definition of what an OO language is broad enough > that we could go on forever about if Go is one. > > The language developers can also choose to declare what it is meant to be > definitively. > > I feel like we should either say it is or it isn't OO and not equivocate in > the FAQ. > > I land on the side of simply saying it is not an OO language because of the > conceptual baggage the notion carries. I've personally seen these concepts > misapplied to Go because if you squint... Go resembles other languages while > being fundamentally different. > > But in general, that lack of clarity seems un-Go like. I've always found the > unwillingness to commit to an answer in the FAQ jarring.
I think the length of the discussion shows that the answer really is "yes and no," because it depends on exactly what you mean by "object-oriented." Since different people mean different things, there is no clear answer possible. It seems to me that you are suggesting that we make that answer clearer for people who assume that either C++ or Java or both are the definition of "object-oriented," but as we can see in this discussion others disagree. So I think the FAQ is saying the right thing. Rather than try to tackle the definition, which is out of place in the Go FAQ, it tries to briefly mention the salient parts of the language. Then it leaves the decision as to whether that is the same as being "object-oriented" to the reader. I don't see how we can do better than that. Thanks. Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcVw8nGysTcwiBMuc3tvAxky6NDujHaxkEQO_orrVa1hFA%40mail.gmail.com.
