[redditor98654]

Why is this a OOP problem and not a problem in large code-bases in general? I can easily see it happening in functional or imperative languages where one creates an almost identical copy of a function instead of reusing and modifying an existing one.

[59nadir]

While the reason people would be scared of modifying a class and a function could be the same, the way this defensive copy-paste of code would pan out is not the same; in one case we get an entirely new class, with all its nonsense in it (in many cases), in the other we get a new function operating on the same data types.

The former is not how OO is supposed to really work, but it is a direct result of adopting OO (non-obvious results of inheritance and other features) and in the latter we get exactly what we already were doing: Lots of functions operating on data, it's just more of the same.

It seems to me that one of these highlights the failure of its respective paradigm much more than the other.

I should note that I don't think functional programming as a paradigm is a particularly fruitful one. What I'm arguing for in the large, if anything, is bog standard procedural/imperative code with procedures/functions + data. Sprinkle in the few useful ideas functional programming does offer and you have something that has a fighting chance.

[redditor98654]

I don’t agree. What do you mean by all the additional nonsense if a class.

This sees to give an unreasonable leeway to copy pasted code to imperative functional languages. What if the copied function also has side effects, mutates a global variable etc. All these problems still exists.