[CodeMage]

To be fair, actual Socratic dialogue can be very effective and rewarding, without being patronizing. What you're describing there -- what the blog post is like -- that's just as awful as you said, or worse.

I couldn't get much further past this:

What is an object?

    An object is a set of functions that operate upon encapsulated data elements.

...what?

[avmich]

Maybe we should try to be patient here and assume some valid point of view - even if possibly unusual for a personal experience. That is, can we try to justify this approach?

It's like HN guidelines - "assume good intent".

[CodeMage]

We can try, but we won't get as far as you might like. I gave the post a second chance and pushed myself past the point I originally criticized and past all such points.

I could write an in-depth critique of the whole post, but it's 5:30 pm and I would rather focus on finishing my work so I can go home and be with my family.

So instead of that, I'll just give you a summary of what I think about the post:

1) The post essentially compares two different approaches: a specific variant of object-oriented programming and a specific variant of functional programming.

2) There are various points in the post where the author plays fast and loose with definitions of certain concepts, in order to make them fit his narrative.

3) The Socratic dialogue format does not help make the reasoning clearer, it just makes the readers uncomfortably aware that they're being railroaded into reaching certain conclusions.

4) The conclusions reached in the post are a mixed bag of: a) useful and interesting, b) correct but incomplete, and c) correct only under very specific circumstances, rendering them potentially dangerous.