[olau]

Chill out people. The man is saying that the pure object-oriented model and the pure functional programming model have corners where they are lacking. He's not saying it's a bad idea to write object-oriented programs or pure functions.

If you have ever needed a little helper function in Java and wondered why you had to stick it in a static method in a class, I think you'll understand his point. Similarly, many of the Lisp programs I've seen end up with a fair amount of procedural code.

Basically, he's asking you to take a step back and appreciate what you have (and don't have), rather than what you think you have. This would lead to more interesting conversations.

[icebraining]

If you have ever needed a little helper function in Java and wondered why you had to stick it in a static method in a class, I think you'll understand his point.

But that's a flaw in Java, not OOP, and it's not a consequence of Java being a pure OOP language (which it isn't).

If one wants to criticize OOP, the language to focus on should be Smalltalk.

[codygman]

He's also making accusations and not providing proof for them. As well as casting each paradigm in a negative light (extreme friendliness, extreme helpfulness, extreme eating all sound negative) without even defining what exactly "extreme OOP" or "extreme FP" are.