On Mon, 18 Aug 2025, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
|--------------------------------------|
|"Ada is a strongly typed OO language."|
|--------------------------------------|

Dear Mister Kazakov:

I am curious as to how such an elite expert computer scientist as yourself 
concluded so perversely. Professor Alan Curtis Kay professes: “I’ve been 
shown some very, very strange-looking pieces of code over the years by 
various people, including people in universities, that they have said is 
OOP code, and written in an OOP language—and actually, I made up the term 
object-oriented”. Cf.
Kay, A. C. (1997). The Computer Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet. In The 
12th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, 
Languages, and Applications.
HTTP://files.Squeak.org/Media/AlanKay/Alan\%20Kay\%20at\%20OOPSLA\%201997\%20-\%20The\%20computer\%20revolution\%20hasnt\%20happened\%20yet.ogg
HTTP://blog.Moryton.net/2007/12/computer-revolution-hasnt-happened-yet.html
HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/Alan_Curtis_Kay/Kay_1997__I_made_up_the_term_object-oriented,_and_I_can_tell_you_I_did_not_have_C++_in_mind.avi

Professor Alan Curtis Kay says that Ada (while calling Ada “ADA” (sic)) is 
not an OOP language but one of the “Better Old Things” about “Abstract 
Data Types which was really staying with an assignment-centered way of 
thinking about programming”.

Contrast
ADA_is_a_good_non-OOP_language_says_Alan_Curtis_Kay.JPG
with
HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/Alan_Curtis_Kay/New_Things_OOP.JPG

Cf.
“Oh, yeah, I had to sigh when Alan Kay, the keynote speaker, had a slide
with Ada spelled as "ADA".” says Gary Kephart, “OOPSLA [was Re: Tri-Ada 
Soars; Hal eats crow -Reply]”, Team-Ada, Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:16:31 -0700
HTTPS://LISTSERV.ACM.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ACMLPX.CGI?A2=ind9710&L=TEAM-ADA&P=R1772

Cf.
HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/Alan_Curtis_Kay/ADA_is_a_good_non-OOP_language_says_Alan_Curtis_Kay.JPG
Cf.
“Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:33:31 -0800

To: Stefan Ram [removed for privacy]

From Alan Kay [removed for privacy]

Subject: Re: Clarification of "object-oriented"
[. . .]
The second phase of this was to finally understand LISP and then 

using this understanding to make much nicer and smaller and more 

powerful and more late bound understructures. [. . .]
[. . .]

[. . .]

(I'm not against types, but I don't know of any type systems that 

aren't a complete pain, so I still like dynamic typing.)


OOP 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.”
says
HTTPS://userPage.FU-Berlin.De/~ram/pub/pub_jf47ht81Ht/doc_kay_oop_de

Precisely not Ada!

Can you cite an authoritative prescriptive definition for “OO language” 
which compels Professor Kay to confess that he must conclude that he 
himself defined that Ada is an “OO language” despite Ada having “any type 
system” and potentially not demanding messaging and allowing global 
variables and demanding compilation-time checking? I note that you say “OO 
language” about a programming language (Ada), but Professor Kay says “OOP 
language” and Kay says that Ada is not an OOP language. So, do you 
theorize that Ada (i.e. a programming language) can be an “OO language” 
without being an “OOP language”? This really does not convince me! Sorry!

I mean no disrespect against you.

Sincerely.