[wvenable]

> That it's successful doesn't mean it's also a good idea.

No, but success brings out nothing but contrarians. You don't get an article on hacker news saying everything is fine and working well even if that is the reality.

You can't make money selling alternative medicine by claiming that medicine works. Newer languages, in my opinion, are going backwards in a lot of ways out of fear of ideas that shouldn't be feared.

[Eero_m]

Obviously being against the common trend is always going to get more attention, but it makes no sense to assume that those people are wrong strictly because of that.

The fact that vaccines are widely used doesn't make anti-vax stupid. Anti-vax is stupid, because a lot of real research has gone into vaccines, and they really do work. The arguments anti-vaxers use are not based on reality, and can easily be proven wrong. The same can NOT be said about programming paradigms.

There is no proof that OOP produces more elegant, simpler, higher quality software with smaller programming effort than other paradigms. OOP isn't proven to work; it's proven to be an attractive choise

[wvenable]

Isn't there proof? I mean there are plenty of alternative programming paradigms -- some that have been around since the 60's and still promoted as alternatives today. Where is that success to compare?

Show me that an alternative to OOP is statically more successful and I'll switch tomorrow.

It seems like you really want it out to be merely popularity rather than being simply successful. That's not a rational position.