Never ask an object for the information you need to do something; rather, ask the object that has the information to do the work for you.

So Class::DBI isn't OO? Darn.

All objects must provide their own UI.

Dear Lord. Whatever happend to seperating the display from the implementation?

I've always gotten the feeling that, for having such a huge impression on modern programming, OO is really poorly defined (thus all the flame wars about "Language X is OO vs. No it isn't"). If you ask a CS major or look it up in a book, you'll usually get some metaphor about animals, and how you can do certain things to all animals, and you can do more things to specific kinds of animals, etc. However, I've been completely unsatisifed with this metaphor (and other common metaphors in various reference materials) as it doesn't really say what OO means for programming.

This is the first article I've read that has, finally, given a decent definition of OO. And if this is what OO is, I don't want any part of it.