[Shorel]

I know. It implies the assumption that not complying with OO is something code should avoid as a rule of thumb.

I'm the one saying that strict OO is bad because it's verbose and its slower than the alternative.

[hdctambien]

I think it more implies that object oriented things should be called OO and not-object-oriented things should be called something that isn't OO.

[eru]

Count me in as saying that not only strict OO is bad, but OO is a bad idea in general. At least in its usual form. You might manage to tackle something OO-like on, say, FP, and get away with it.