[deltaonefour]

If you have a hard time thinking this way then you really need to try other paradigms in coding because OOP is not the only way and it is getting less and less popular.

For example C, is not OOP. Linus Torvalds hates OOP, so linux is in written in C. Go was created by Robert Pike who's also subtly against it, and it shows in the language. Additionally Rust pretty much gets rid of objects as well. React is also moving away from class based representation of components.

These are just modern languages that are moving away from OOP. In addition to this... behind the modern languages there's a whole universe and history of other styles of programming.

Not against OOP... But I'm saying it's not a good sign if OOP is the only perspective you're capable of seeing.

[discreteevent]

I think all of your examples allow encapsulation of data behind polymorphic interfaces. So, not data oriented. This includes the Linux kernel [1]

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Ealdrich/papers/objects-essay.pdf

[deltaonefour]

Polymorphism and encapsulation are not features exclusive to OOP.

Isomorphisms exist everywhere. You could say nothing is OOP because it compiles into assembly anyway where pretty much all those concepts don't even exist. You can even say all of assembly can decompile into OOP so everything is OOP.

Think about it. If linus torvolds hates OOP. What is it that he hates? You can say, Linus is an idiot and everything is OOP so he's wrong.

Or you can understand what is it about OOP that he hates and understand the delta between my examples and what is traditionally thought of as OOP.

None* of my examples contain a class. That should be a hint, as that syntax is pretty much used in most OOP languages.

*React still contains class based components except the creators now recommend moving away from class based syntax to functional components.