Why the claim that c# people don't get object-oriented programming? (vs class-oriented)

Question

This caught my attention last night.

On the latest ALT.NET Podcast Scott Bellware discusses how as opposed to Ruby, languages like c#, java et al. are not truly object o

Answer 1

OO is sometimes defined as message oriented. The idea is that a method call (or property access) is really a message sent to another object. How the recieveing object handles the message is completely encapsulated. Often the message corresponds to a method which is then executed, but that is just an implementation detail. You can for example create a catch-all handler which is executed regardless of the method name in the message.

Static OO like in C# does not have this kind of encapsulation. A massage has to correspond to an existing method or property, otherwise the compiler will complain. Dynamic languages like Smalltalk, Ruby or Python does however support "message-based" OO.

So in this sense C# and other statically typed OO languages are not true OO, sine thay lack "true" encapsulation.