[ceol]

>The original arguments for OO were: it's better for managing complexity, and it creates programs that are easier to change. Both of these turned out not to be true in general.

How so? I find OOP code to be much easier to understand and change.

[gruseom]

I've tried to explain that in my other comments. But we may not be able to say much to each other than that our experiences differ. How much of our experience is real and how much is owed to our assumptions (like "OO is good" or "not") is impossible to disentangle in a general discussion. You know how this stuff really gets hammered out? When people are working together on the same system. Then we can point to specific examples that we both understand, and try to come to an arrangement we both like. Barring that, it's pretty much YMMV.