OO is just a way of organizing code. You can simulate quite a bit of it in non-OO languages. But a lot of the problems are universal. OO lets you abstract away

OO is just a way of organizing code. You can simulate quite a bit of it in non-OO languages. But a lot of the problems are universal. OO lets you abstract away a lot of detail, but locks you into some rigidity that doesn't map perfectly onto the real world. It's a leaky abstraction. But so is _everything_ real that we attempt to represent in a computer or in any formal system. Gödel proved this 85 years ago. Code reuse is entirely possible with OO. The practical difficulties of code dependency management are not unique to OO. Anyone who's ever developed anything non-trivial in Node has seen how insane the dependency tree can get. Every language and platform has its own version of this problem and its own solution. From Windows DLL hell to Ubuntu Snap, from Bundler to Virtualenv, this problem transcends any particular style of programming. It's good the author is skeptical of the promises of functional programming, but the total rejection of OO concepts as useless reveals that ultimately the author didn't really learn anything useful. The author fails to address how abandoning OO solves any of the problems he claims to have. "Ew, that's gross!" is not a useful analysis.