My best guess would be object-oriented in the Smalltalk/Self/etc. sense as other posters have alluded to. It's a hard distinction to understand/qualify. Jim Copelien gave a keynote at SPLASH this year about this distinction that left many people confused, but the big takeaway seemed to be that people limit the expressiveness of real object-orientation by instead focusing on classes and prototypes and whatnot. What he sees as a potential embodiment of real object-orientation (together with Trygve Reenskaug, inventor of MVC) is a paradigm they are calling DCI (Data, context, integeration).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data,_Context,_and_Interaction
Neither Smalltalk nor Self had interfaces, and never needed them. Let's be clear, interfaces give nothing to a dynamic language. If you bring them into a dynamic language, you are essentially inventing code contracts - which can be useful, but they serve a fundamentally different purpose than a Java interface.
