What are you trying to argue? Like what's the actual proposition that you're putting forward? Those mostly sound like scattered, particular complaints about pa

What are you trying to argue? Like what's the actual proposition that you're putting forward? Those mostly sound like scattered, particular complaints about particular OO languages, none of which have anything to do with OOP as a paradigm (as far as I can tell). If you're trying to suggest that there is no viable OOP programming language, that's manifestly false, as trillions of dollars of value have been created following the OOP paradigm in various OOP-oriented languages. If you're trying to argue that there is no perfect OO language, I'd agree with you but argue that the it's a trivial consequence of there being no perfect programming language in general (language design is a game of trade-offs). If you're trying to suggest that every use of OOP could be replaced by a clearly superior, readily available, battle-tested non-OOP approach (which you haven't, you've just listed languages and language flaws with no alternatives), the argument sounds pretty implausible. You can weaken some of these claims to make some headway (replace always with in general or whatever), but that kind of takes the wind of out the argument's proverbial sails. Personally I dislike OO approaches because I usually work on greenfield projects, and every example of OO in a greenfield context that I've seen has been deeply premature and slowed down development. (I also think the DRY principle is a pile of crap in a greenfield context with highish-level code). When I pull down a gigantic, mature Apache repo though, I'm usually not put off by mature OO abstractions, and they (in general) help me follow and add to the code. It cuts both ways. Like most ideas cooked up by smart people solving hard problems, OO is imperfect but sometimes useful.