To bring it back to the original comment I was replying too and to the original email, Alan Kay says in the email:
> 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.
He was writing in 2003 so presumably didn't / doesn't consider Java or C++ OOP languages by his definition.
The comment I was originally replying to said:
> C++, Java, Python, are all founded in confused interpretations of OO. OO has also become so synonymous with these implementations that we should just let the paradigm go entirely and start afresh.
And I was taking issue with C++ being included with Java in this (I think Python shouldn't really be included either). C++ is a multi paradigm language and while I agree the OOP parts of it that it has in common with Java are neither very good nor what Alan Kay meant by OOP, C++ supports other better programming paradigms better than Java does.
The good parts of C++ style OOP are mostly the ADT bits. The less good parts are inheritance and virtual functions. Design Patterns makes heavy use of the less good parts of that style of OOP and most of the problems it addresses are better solved in other ways that modern C++ supports quite well.
The Gang of Four book uses Smalltalk and C++ for its pattern examples, Java wasn't even invented when the first edition came out.