| This was my take as well. As many good points as there are in the article (and there are many), the whole thing is "No True Scotsman" itself. Any attempt to fuse aspects of other languages or paradigms with OOP in order to mitigate the listed problems are dismissed as "not OOP" to serve the purpose of illustrating that OOP sucks. My experience is that any pure paradigm has limited context in which it's ideal and many pitfalls outside that context. OOP is no different. Foolish adherence to consistency, hobgoblin of little minds, etc. Where I will agree, at least in spirit, is that OOP has a few different aspects, including the implementation in a given language, the current understanding of best practices for a given context, and the cult of context-independent "design correctness". That last one has major issues. When the cult drives the implementation, you get high-ceremony languages like Java. And when the cult drives best practices, you get maintenance issues like those currently being acknowledged around invasive unit testing, etc. The key there isn't the design paradigm, IMO, but the fallacy of trying to apply a best practice without understanding why it's useful or analyzing whether it's the right thing to do for the current situation. An analogy would be normalizing a relational database. There's a "correct way" to do it, which in theory reduces maintenance if you go to third+ normal form. In practice, knowing when to relax normalization is the difference between success and a mess. So goes DRY, SOLID, etc. |