[ogre_codes]

I've found that objects best when they are used in moderation. Most of my code is plain old functions, but occasionally I find that using an object to do some things is just much cleaner. The rest of the time doing away with all the baggage associated with objects and using structs or other, simpler structures is just easier to wrap my head around.

Java IMO is the classic case of going way too far overboard with being object oriented. Much worse than Python.

[Gibbon1]

I feel like OO is okay if objects implement good well thought out interfaces. The problem is designing good well thought out interfaces is hard. Also the rise of distributed computing causes problems for OO. Passing data between systems is pretty easy. Passing functions with that data, not so much.

[ogre_codes]

> I feel like OO is okay if objects implement good well thought out interfaces.

I find that much of what I do is taking something from structure A and manipulating structure B. If you are a slave to OOP, you end up bolting that method to either one or the other object when really it affects both and belongs in a separate place entirely.

The other big issue I have with OOP is frequently I don't want or care for reference passing, I just want value passing. That is usually the place where I start using objects is when passing references is useful.

It's particularly useful if you are building a thing which requires multiple steps and you need that state to persist between steps. I've seen it done well with functional programming, but for me it's just easier to build something out with an object that holds persistent state.

[rocqua]

My experience with distributed computing is that the biggest issue isn't passing functions with data. Instead the biggest issue is sharing state between systems. This is part of why immutability is very nice.