[Diederich]

All of this reflects my thoughts on the matters, and I've been waiting more than 15 years for the co-called Actor model to 'come around', grieving the use of the term 'Object Oriented' in the meantime.

This comes across as strongly worded, but I'm going to let it stand, given the understanding that the C++ and Java style of 'Object Oriented' has value in a lot of situations and circumstances. Though I have leaned very heavily on Kay's 'Actor Model' over the years, C++ style OOP has also been useful from time to time.

[lectrick]

As someone who has only recently (finally) become disillusioned by OO (especially in larger codebases and/or on programming teams, which both seem to rapidly escalate tech debt and complexity thanks to things like mutability, class reopening and stowing-state-everywhere)... I'm so sorry, man. The difference (which is significant) unfortunately seems to require years of real-world experience with both to see it.

I've been pointing OO people to these thoughts by John Carmack, who is pretty well-respected in the C++ OO community: http://gamasutra.com/view/news/169296/Indepth_Functional_pro...

[Diederich]

I learned to program well before OO became The Thing, so when it came around, I had a foundation to consider it with a broader perspective.

Re: "I'm so sorry, man." Thanks, but I'm not sorry at all. The (what I call) Message Oriented Programming first approach has allowed me to have a highly successful career.

Re: Carmack. There's quite a few such highly respected and respectable articles out there, but I gave up advocacy a long, long time ago. I just let what I'm doing, and not doing, do the talking, for better and worse.

[lectrick]

Don't be jaded! Stay excited! You were way ahead of the curve! ;)

[Diederich]

Thanks for that! I'm not jaded, just realistic.

I'm actually working at a startup now that I found very interesting, mostly because it's based on flow-based programming paradigms:

https://flux.io/