> Java and other OO languages actually encourage the trend Java, yes. Other OO - not so much. Java is getting better now, but, for a long time, it was simply a

> Java and other OO languages actually encourage the trend Java, yes. Other OO - not so much. Java is getting better now, but, for a long time, it was simply a weak language, with primitive type system and lots of necessary boilerplates. If you look at other implementations of OO, you'll see that the trend of "wrapping everything in dozens of wrappers and other stuff" is definitely not universal among them. Dynamic, reflective languages like Ruby and Python tend to have shallow class hierarchies and few wrappers; especially in Python, heavy use of inheritance and creation of classes for every little bit of data is considered un-pythonic. Then you have Smalltalk, which allows arbitrary code transformations on runtime, which further decreases boilerplate and makes a language more expressive. There's also Dylan and, of course, Common Lisp with CLOS. I'm working with StumpWM lately, a window manager written in Common Lisp - it does use classes and multi-methods, but very sparingly. WM is a piece of software, which is almost GUI only, and so in Java, you'd get a monstrous framework with myriads of classes and relations between these. In CL you don't need that at all - standard defuns and built-in data structures are enough for most things. Anyway, Object Oriented Programming comes in various sizes and shapes, and it's unfair to see bad Java code as "representative OO" code. JavaScript is OO, Smalltalk is OO, OCaml is OO(/FP), and Julia is OO. Take a moment (more like a couple of years, but...) to look at them and try to compare the languages' object models and the common practice of writing code. You'll see something amazing, more than once, I promise.