It's interesting that he's advocating this on games. I've been annoyed at most OOP codebases, but conceded that games and GUIs were the canonical applications

It's interesting that he's advocating this on games. I've been annoyed at most OOP codebases, but conceded that games and GUIs were the canonical applications of OOP. Perhaps you could say that highly stateful apps running on a single machine can use state encapsulated in objects. In contrast, for web UIs and their "big data" back ends, I believe you also want to use a data-oriented approach, rather than a code-oriented approach (or at least this is the style that my code has converged upon). You don't need to wrap everything up in objects all the time when you're really just passing strings through the network and doing light processing. And when you're not even using a type-safe language to begin with. But he's advocating the same style on games, just with structs and functions rather than buffers and processes. This makes me think OOP is more of a mistake, although I will admit that I use objects as modules now (a longer conversation, but the idea is to instantiate almost all your objects at startup, and not allocate during normal program flow). I've long thought there was this interesting historical oddity in that we came up with languages in the 90's and designed them for GUIs, but we're using them the 2010's for web and server programming. Then you get web apps that are a mess of misleading objects, when really the architecture is stateless (or stored in a database, which is not programmable using your language).