Once someone offers up the replacement name so that we can continue to talk about what "object-oriented" referred to 40 years ago — and still refers to today, sure. Nobody cares about the exact letters and sounds.

But, until then, no. It is still something we regularly talk about. It needs a name. And lucky for us it already has one — and has had one for 40 years.

> Sure but your definition doesn't cover it.

How does it not cover it?

> Problem with making encapsulation and polymorphism essential to OOP definition, is that it then starts garbling up functional languages like Haskell and imperative like C.

Polymorphism? That was never mentioned. Let me reiterate the definitions:

- Imperative: Plain functions (C, Fortran, Pascal).

- Functional: Functions with encapsulation (C++, Java, Haskell, Erlang).

- Object-oriented: Message passing (Smalltalk, Objective-C, Ruby, Erlang).

Let me also reiterate that there are other axis of concerns. Imperative, functional, and object-oriented are not trying to categorize every last feature a programming language might have. Mutable/immutable, or polymorphic/monomorphic, etc. are others concern and can be independently labeled as such.

> Perhaps, but broadly speaking people agree that C++ and Java are OOP

Many do, but just as many hold on to the original definition. Try as you might, you're not going to find a common definition here, I'm afraid. If you want to use the term effectively, you're going to have to explicitly define it each time.

I thought it was a simple question. You don't know if you have read the comments or not?

No, words in a document do not change by an unrelated party having living some kind of experience. Not even if that experience is negative.

You must not have read all the comments yet? One of Go's key runtime maintainers sent you a message. Now is your opportunity to give him your plan so that he can give you the political support you seek.