I couldn't get through this - I suspect it's because I decided a long time ago to make the effort to stop thinking of programming paradigm's as any one language, and instead to think of them in more abstract terms. That's really helped me to know when one paradigm or another would be better for the task at hand (There are tasks that are easier to think about from an OOP perspective and others that are easier to use a functional or imperative approach).

I won't ever bother to read, yet another one of those rants that fails to understand, with exception of C and Assembly, all major mainstream languages support OOP in some form or fashion, and is mostly a lack of understanding of CS background than anything else.

(2014)

A passionate essay, which overstates its case, relies on anecdotal or selective evidence, and employs rhetorical strategies that weaken its objectivity. The strongest points are its identification of fallacious reasoning in OOP advocacy and its call to consider alternatives. But it doesn't consider that the same kind of criticism applies to all method hypes; if you look at FP or Agile or present advocacy that promise you heaven on earth and the solution to all problems if you use e.g. Rust, it's no better than the garbage promised by OO marketing at the time.

You could get rid of all the OOP and keep shared mutable state and you wouldn't be any better off. Possibly worse because you don't even have OOP patterns to follow and find where problems arise.

Most don't even do OOP right--instead of "tell don't ask", writing Banana-Gorilla-Jungle methods.

I hate OOP with a passion, but intellectual honesty forces me to admit its strength .

OOP is tailored to the human mental model. He who can form a sentence , can model object orientated. Its intuitive and helps even disorganised people to diacover code and organize problemd, by mimicking the physical world.

It kind of doesn't matter whether the author's view is correct. Their adherence to a screed undermines the argument so much it becomes irrelevant.