[zamalek]

That exact sentiment exists deep in my comment history here: I think I used the word "blueprint" if you care enough to fact check that. That is why I said I don't hold issue with the content of the book.

My issue is that the book is useful. It helps solve the artificial complexity introduced by OOP.

[psd1]

Agreed that it's never good to have new social problems created by whatever you did to solve the previous problem. But that's the nature of doing stuff.

I own a car. Great, now I have maintenance concerns. But it's still a net positive, which is why we do it.

If oop creates more work than the value of brings, then we should scrap it. But I've seen some pretty bad procedural code, so I don't think that's a given.

[wackro]

I see. It was the ambiguity over your usage of 'imaginary problems'. But yes - your previous comments seem to suggest we're actually on the same page regarding patterns.