Comment by Rochus
3 days ago
Yes. It's by standard a "general purpose" programming language, not a "functional" language, and it definitely corresponds with the IEEE definition for OOP (in contrast to the mentioned Rust or Go languages). I thought I would give a clear example that the fellow would immediately understand. However, I seem to have underestimated the postmodernist tendencies of today's world.
If it's a general purpose language and not a functional language just because it has function features, then why would it be an 'OOP' language just because it has 'OOP' features?
Correct. (did I say something else?)