[pka]

I want to respond to one point specifically: `Private ecosystem — if all your code is in X, you have potentially tons of reusable modules as part of your own stack.`

Never ever in my OOP days have I been able to reuse a non-trivial function from a different codebase "just like that". This is because all my functions were impure - something encouraged by most mainstream languages. So I had to first rip out the context the function was living in and make it work again before being able to use it somewhere else. I wouldn't fix it in the original place though, so next time I'd want to reuse I'd have to repeat every step again.

Since I started using a pure language, reusing code actually became possible. I can rip out a function and place it in a new codebase without changing it a bit and it's gonna work just like that, no problem.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I would define the Blub paradox as "being unable to logically explain the benefits of something solving a problem you haven't realized is actually a problem yet". This may sound like trying to create problems out of nothing just so that they can be solved by "cool feature X", but I'd guess in most situations this isn't the case.

I truly believed that I was creating reusable OOP components until I realized that actually I wasn't. I truly believed a normal editor is more than sufficient for my needs until I learned vim. I truly believed svn was the best thing ever until I learned git. Etc...

[lobster_johnson]

I didn't mean copy-paste reusability, I meant packaging code into reusable modules (e.g., NPM packages, Ruby gems).

This has nothing to do with OO, really. But I don't disagree with your point about immutability.