[erlang-questions] Erlang "object-oriented" after all?

[Vlad Dumitrescu]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:06, Joe Armstrong <erlang@REDACTED> wrote:
> It's difficult to  say if Erlang is OO - since there is no widely
> accepted definition of what OO is or means.
>
> I now believe the following to be central to the notion of OO.
>
>      - Isolated concurrent things
>      - Communication through message passing
>      - Polymorphism
>
> All the other stuff (inheritance, private/public methods, ....) has
> nothing to do with OO.

Hi,

True.

I feel though that there is something missing before this OO-ness
really becomes useful. And that is a way to specify the contract that
one expects a certain object to fulfill. An interface or a protocol
has to be possible to be referred to by name. Today that name would be
the name of a module, but it feels like module names get a too
overloaded meaning. I don't have an alternative suggestion yet,
though.

best regards,
Vlad