[seanmcdirmid]

There is an entire lineage of real object-oriented languages with nominal types starting from the dynamically typed smalltalk (research on which where we learned H&M was horribly ill suited to OOP in the first place). Or if you prefer, just look at how you use your natural language to name things and reason about the world.

[acjohnson55]

On the other hand, so many people have abandoned the most common forms of OOP. See for example the story from yesterday [1]. Many writers have written about how brittle object hierarchies are in anything nontrivial, [2] for example.

I will say though that newer models of OOP, focusing on interfaces and composability of behavior, seem to have quite a bit of steam left in them.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7618933

[2] http://raganwald.com/2014/03/31/class-hierarchies-dont-do-th...

[seanmcdirmid]

Don't count OOP as being dead yet, the FP stuff is useful (I use it myself), but we have our own better abstractions coming out, like having more fun with mixin-style inheritance. The FP + OOP crowd is pretty vocal, I'll give you that.