Talk:Object-based language

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MadScientistX11 (talk | contribs) at 14:40, 23 March 2015 (Hierarchy of object-based languages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 10 years ago by MadScientistX11 in topic Hierarchy of object-based languages
WikiProject iconComputing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Merge proposal

There is currently an article: Object-based that covers the identical topic as this one. I propose Object-based be merged into Object-based language. MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since no one commented in several months I went ahead and did the merge. There was almost nothing worth saving in the Object-based article, it was just a stub but what it did say that was of any merit (e.g. VB is an example of an object-based language) was either in or I incorporated into this article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hierarchy of object-based languages

From the article, it is unclear what a "true" object-oriented language is. In the second paragraph, JavaScript is enlisted under object-based languages that are not object-oriented. The fourth paragraph says that prototype-based languages are true object-oriented languages, like JavaScript. What is now true for JavaScript? Is it object-based in the sense that object-based is a hypernym of object-oriented? If so, how can it be a "true" OO language then?--Sae1962 (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

That is an excellent point. Some putz edited the article and added Javascript as an OO language. I started to revert the edit but I noticed that there is a lot of (bad, wrong) information out there when you do a Google search that does say javascript is OO. But if you ignore bullshit written by people with agendas and stick to things written by actual experts in OO there is no question. Javascript is object-based not object-oriented. If you presented a paper at OOPSLA that said Javascript was OO they would laugh you off the stage. If it sounds like I'm a bit frustrated I am, there are several people who don't know their OO ass from an OO hole in the ground and should be editing articles on Nicky Manoj or the Back Street boys but end up editing articles like this and I just got tired of dealing with it. By the way none of this means that Javascript isn't "as good" as Java (which of course is OO) just that they are meant for different uses and for the uses that Javascript was meant for I think the designers of the language absolutely made the right call. If you agree with what I'm saying here (not the part about Nicky Manoj, the part about object-based vs. object-oriented) I'll take that as a consensus and when I have some time wade into this one more time and try to clean up the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply