[1dom]

I came to the comments to try find a similar sentiment. I agree wholeheartedly with the author on everything apart from the bit about OO, where I feel the same as you.

What's the deal with this? I'm not an OO evangelist at all, but I often find myself using objects like you describe: as a mechanism to group related functions and data.

I feel there are people who see OO like a philosophy on how to architect stuff, and from that perspective, the idea of a "purely OO system" is perhaps a little unwieldy.

But from the perspective of OO as a low level tool to help group stuff in programming, as part of some other non-pure-OO system - it works really well and makes a lot of sense for me. I've often done this in environments around people who are outspoken anti-OO who either haven't noticed or haven't complained.

Am I a bad person, are you like me, are we idiots somehow?

[nxrabl]

I think the specific trap the author is arguing against is where you try to make your classes model 1-1 some external domain model without tailoring them only to the functionally that your specific application needs. If you’re writing a FooClass, it’s easy to get caught up in giving it everything a Foo would have, even if you won’t actually use it.