ZombieChicken

From my understanding, yes. Personally, I’ve seen so many different definitions of “OOP” (most of which were incoherent), I developed my own definition of what an ‘object’ is, and just go on with life.

In a proper PnPRPG/Tabletop RPG game, a truly spectacular blunder feels like a success to the person who failed. Walk into a bar and critfail both your Communications check, and the “Oh crap, I failed that badly. Can I save this by doing ______?” follow-up Communications check? You think you did fine, but now the entire bar thinks you are a truly crazy person, and treat you with respect only because they think you’re going to shiv them in the neck if they get out of line.

mechanical teletype? Pfff. Grow up and learn to read your blinkenlights already. Heck, while you’re at it, here are 16 switches and three buttons. That should be more than enough for anything ever.

Are they? It’s a known fact that they do that kind of thing. If they were good, wouldn’t their involvement not appear, or would be, at best, a rumor?

Great! Now you can enjoy that freshly assembled directory feeling, knowing that now you only have the configs in there that you need.

find / -name “*.bat” -print0 | xargs -0 shred -fuv -n3

Or do as Alan Kay wants and start calling it “Message-Oriented Programming”.

“I’m sorry that I long ago coined the term “objects” for this topic because it gets many people to focus on the lesser idea. The big idea is “messaging”.”

https://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-October/017019.html