Object Purism

Object Purism is often used as a negative term to describe arguments that attempt to place themselves on the high-ground based upon some definition of the Object Paradigm believed to be fundamental. Object Purism can take several forms

Language-Centric: The concept that if a language does not adhere to all of a particular set of requirements that it is not truly an ObjectOrientedProgrammingLanguage. This can include support for non-OO features within the language.

Conceptual: The refusal to allow objects that aggregate functions to enter into the model due to the belief that these are purely functional constructs and do not have any raison d'être in the object world.

---

This is flawed from the assumption that there is only one true form of ObjectOrientedProgramming. At least based on considerations of ethics it should be discarded. See ObjectOrientedProgramming, IsJavaObjectOriented and the likes. There is no ObjectPurism per se, but there are some people's ideas of OO purity -- CostinCozianu

I need some clarification here. What is flawed? The previous definition or the very notion that some notions of what OO is are better than others?

• ObjectPurism is flawed as a notion because there are several distinct, equally consistent, equally valuable models on ObjectOrientedProgramming. One cannot define ObjectPurism unless within the boundaries of his OO language or his view on OO.
• ObjectPurism in flawed when used in arguments of one system's superiority over the other, for obvious reasons.

---

'Purely object-oriented' is also used as a descriptive term to differentiate from 'multi-paradigm' (see MultiParadigmProgrammingLanguage). Used in this sense, the term may or may not express a value judgement, depending on context.

---

See DefinitionsForOo, ArgumentsAgainstOop.