I agree with the above, however I have to say something about the following statement:[quote=“Qqwy, post:10, topic:1771”]
I think that the main change is that instead of having objects that themselves are responsible for their capabilities, you have data which can be transformed into other data if it has the correct format.
[/quote]
In Erlang/Elixir one can think of processes as being objects, in fact when OO was being discussed by Alan Kay (one of the fathers of the idea of object-oriented programming) and Stefan Ram, Alan said the following two statements
I thought of objects being like biological cells and/or individual
computers on a network, only able to communicate with messagesOOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and
hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. It
can be done in Smalltalk and in LISP. There are possibly other
systems in which this is possible, but I’m not aware of them.
Now this sounds a lot like the processes in OTP. I found the info in this really interesting article by James Edward Gray it’s a nice read. I’ve heard many times OO was about message passing and not Classes but I could not fully grasp that concept until I looked at it through Elixir and OTP.
