alt Hacker NewsI think the issue is OOP patterns are one part missing features, one part trying to find common ground for Java, Modula, C++, SmallTalk, that it ends up too broad.
A much saner definition is looking at how languages evolved and how term is used. The way it's used is to describe an inheritance based language. Basically C++ and the descendants.
> one part trying to find common ground for Java, Modula, C++
The primary common ground is that their functions have encapsulation, which is what separates it from functions without encapsulation (i.e. imperative programming). This already has a name: Functional programming.
The trouble is that functional, immutable programming language proponents don't like to admit that immutability is not on the same plane as imperative/functional/object-oriented programming.
> SmallTalk
Smalltalk is different. It doesn't use function calling. It uses message passing. This is what object-oriented was originally intended to reference — it not being functional or imperative. In other words, "object-oriented" was coined for Smalltalk, and Smalltalk alone[1], because of its unique approach — something that really only Objective-C and Ruby have since adopted. If you go back and read the original "object-oriented" definition, you'll soon notice it is basically just a Smalltalk laundry list.
> how term is used.
Language evolves, certainly. The only trouble is that it's not clear to many what to call what was originally known as "object-oriented", etc. That's how we end up in this "no its this", "no its that" nonsense. So, the only question is: What can we agree to call these things that seemly have no name?