[keithnz]

so, the argument is it's harmful because it's a premature optimization? the evidence being simply alternatives to classes? It seems like the paper doesn't present a good case for why classes are harmful. Seems the whole premise if flawed based on a glib quote from Knuth

Premature optimization ( if that is what classes are ) doesn't mean the optimization is harmful. It could actually be really good.

The quote means, when you find some evil, and track it back, you'd find premature optimization. You can also find awesome code, track it back, and also find premature optimization.

So, you need to prove classes are evil, and then track it back to premature optimization. This paper fails to do that and therefore fails to make the case for harm