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'Ítre 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 -- CostinCozianuI 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?