fare

Please run this benchmark (no internet access for now, from concepts in your memory).

I’ll run a memory-only version, keeping the benchmark separate from the criteria used to explain it.

One limitation matters: I can propose a benchmark based on remembered usage, but cannot establish overwhelming popular consensus empirically without sources. I’ll distinguish a promising result from a result that passes your full stopping rule.

1. Types and benchmark

fare

Looking for the best possible definition of OOP

I am looking for a short but precise definition of Object-Oriented Programming (OOP).

(Indirect Goal: test whether the skill below can lead to the best answer)

Skill: Getting to the Essence of a Concept

What is the Concept at Stake?

fare

Implement in Scheme the algorithm described below in the attached document.

;; c4-linearize head parents get-precedence-list suffix? [eq [get-name]]
;;   -> (values precedence-list super-suffix-or-#f)
;;
;; Compute the precedence list for a specification.
;;   head               - prefix list to prepend (typically (list x) or '())
;;   parents            - list of totally-ordered parent chains (each chain is a list);
;;                        supports an arbitrary DAG for the local precedence order,
;;                        e.g. '((A B C)) for a single chain, or '((A B) (C A)) for a DAG.

fare

Looking for the best possible definition of OOP

I am looking for a short but precise definition of Object-Oriented Programming (OOP).

(Indirect Goal: test whether the skill below can lead to the best answer)

Skill: Getting to the Essence of a Concept

What is the Concept at Stake?

fare

Looking for the best possible definition of OOP

I am looking for a short but precise definition of Object-Oriented Programming (OOP).

(Indirect Goal: test whether the skill below can lead to the best answer)

Skill: Getting to the Essence of a Concept

Before Defining a Concept: Make a Benchmark

fare

Looking for the best possible definition of OOP

I am looking for a short but precise definition of Object-Oriented Programming (OOP).

(Indirect Goal: test whether the skill below can lead to the best answer)

Skill: Getting to the Essence of a Concept

Before Defining a Concept: Make a Benchmark

fare

(Round 1 Prompt, pasted)

Looking for the best possible definition of OOP

The Goal

I am looking for a short but precise definition of Object-Oriented Programming (OOP).

What should the definition of OOP cover?

• Languages or subsystems of languages that the authors, the public, and experts agree is OOP,

fare

I am looking for a short but precise definition of Object-Oriented Programming.

A good definition for a concept is:

• Meaningful: it provides information necessary and sufficient to delineate the concept. It must crucially reject what is outside the concept as well as accept what is inside.
• Clear: it relies on well-understood unambiguous words and preexisting concepts, and provides criteria that are objective (as much as can be).
• Informational: it relates a concept at some level of abstraction to its manifestations at a slightly lower level of abstraction. The definition might invoke concepts at the same level as the one being defined, but only if they are simpler than it,

fare

I am looking for a short but precise definition of Object-Oriented Programming.

A good definition for a concept is:

• Meaningful: it provides information necessary and sufficient to delineate the concept. It must crucially reject what is outside the concept as well as accept what is inside.
• Clear: it relies on well-understood unambiguous words and preexisting concepts, and provides criteria that are objective (as much as can be).
• Informational: it relates a concept at some level of abstraction to its manifestations at a slightly lower level of abstraction. The definition might invoke concepts at the same level as the one being defined, but only if they are simpler than it,

fare

1

What is the essence of Object-Oriented Programming? What is it for? What makes something OO or not OO? I don't want the bullshit circular answers from Wikipedia or "common" literature, without clean criteria, wherein anything anyone claims is OO becomes so. I want a criterion based on essentials. Something that can duly reject hyped "this database is OO" (even though it isn't) or absurd and not-helpful opinions like Cook's "the lambda calculus is OO because it has abstraction, which is all that matters" and "smalltalk isn't 'pure' OO so haha it's not even quite OO". And by "OO" I will mean the programming language meaning that includes Smalltalk and CLOS as well as C++ Java and JavaScript. Hopefully the criterion can reject languages or systems that have claimed to be OO (but accept most of the commonly accepted OO languages), and accept a few outlires that aren't claimed as OO by their authors, but are (but still reject most languages not considered OO). If the criterion only restates wishy-wash