[kubb]

It's really weird when the blogger assumes they know exactly what I do and think, here that I think of a class hierarchy as the first thing when writing a C++ program.

I suppose they're going for the "wow, are you God?" effect, but when it's a miss, it just makes them look silly.

[mustache_kimono]

When I read or listen to Muratori, I almost certainly agree with most of the substance of what he is saying. It's just that he has the most disagreeable way of making his point.

I think it's helpful to think of nearly all the content produced by Muratori and Blow as a branding exercise. They want you to think they are enfant terrible style geniuses who represent the vanguard of the profession. As silly as their strawmen are, this frame of "civilization is in decline because it fails to recognize my unique genius" is much more silly, and makes each video/rant seem both one note and self aggrandizing.

[10000truths]

The kind of thinking that the blogger describes was highly pervasive in enterprise circles in the late 90s and early aughts. There was a cult-like following of some of the tenets of object oriented programming - that's where the whole "Java = overly verbose spaghetti" reputation was born.

[DylanSp]

It doesn't help that OOP is still frequently taught in a similar style; not necessarily with UML diagrams, but with inheritance hierarchies that are often based on physical objects (i.e. an Animal class, with Cat and Dog subclasses). This doesn't necessarily reflect current OOP's actual usage (tending towards less use of inheritance, as well as classes that represent more abstract entities like UI components), but it's the first exposure of OOP for a lot of people.