[Confusion]

  It’s funny how similar the arguments against OOP and
  Reactive Programming are. 

It's funny how similar this argument in favor of Reactive programming is to the arguments used in favor of other purported paradigm shifting trends that never went anywhere. Aspect Oriented Programming anyone?

[jarrett]

I'm also not convinced that the arguments really are the same. The biggest complaint I've heard about OOP isn't that "you can get by without it," as the author claims. Rather, it's two things: Proliferation of objects such that the codebase can't be understood holistically, and the dangers arising from objects having internal state. I've never heard either of those arguments against reactive programming.

The most common complaint I've heard about reactive programming is that it has yet to be realized in the form of mature libraries. (In general, for most languages. I'm sure at least one language has it.) Thus, whether it's a great idea or not is largely immaterial for most workaday developers, who won't be able to use it until the ecosystem exists.

[UK-AL]

Aspects are used quite a lot in Java and C#. Simply to get around the verbosity.

[tlarkworthy]

and in python they are function decorators.