2 replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
source | link

To answer your question directly: almost certainly not. There doesn't appear to be a formal mathematical theory for OOP the way that lambda calculus and/or Combinatory Logic underly functional programming, or Turing Machines underly ordinary old imperative programming.

See this stackoverflow questionthis stackoverflow question for more.

My guess is that the lack of an underlying mathematical theory is why everybody knows what an "object" is when they see one, but nobody sees "objects" quite the same as anyone else.

To answer your question directly: almost certainly not. There doesn't appear to be a formal mathematical theory for OOP the way that lambda calculus and/or Combinatory Logic underly functional programming, or Turing Machines underly ordinary old imperative programming.

See this stackoverflow question for more.

My guess is that the lack of an underlying mathematical theory is why everybody knows what an "object" is when they see one, but nobody sees "objects" quite the same as anyone else.

To answer your question directly: almost certainly not. There doesn't appear to be a formal mathematical theory for OOP the way that lambda calculus and/or Combinatory Logic underly functional programming, or Turing Machines underly ordinary old imperative programming.

See this stackoverflow question for more.

My guess is that the lack of an underlying mathematical theory is why everybody knows what an "object" is when they see one, but nobody sees "objects" quite the same as anyone else.

1
source | link

To answer your question directly: almost certainly not. There doesn't appear to be a formal mathematical theory for OOP the way that lambda calculus and/or Combinatory Logic underly functional programming, or Turing Machines underly ordinary old imperative programming.

See this stackoverflow question for more.

My guess is that the lack of an underlying mathematical theory is why everybody knows what an "object" is when they see one, but nobody sees "objects" quite the same as anyone else.