As someone who struggles with object-oriented programming (OOP), I thought these thoughts by the author Niklaus Wirth on OOP were interesting: > ...the careful

As someone who struggles with object-oriented programming (OOP), I thought these thoughts by the author Niklaus Wirth on OOP were interesting: > ...the careful observer may wonder...what was the essential difference to the traditional view of programming. After all, the old cornerstones of procedural programming reappear, albeit embedded in a new terminology: Objects are records, classes are types, methods are procedures, and sending a method is equivalent to calling a procedure. True, records now consist of data fields and, in addition, methods; and true, the feature called inheritance allows the construction of heterogeneous data structures, useful also without object-orientation. > Was this change of terminology expressing an essential paradigm shift, or was it a vehicle for gaining attention, a “sales trick”? As someone who thinks OOP is oversold, I think I agree with him. I've long felt that OOP dresses itself up in too many layers of terminology. That has a cost in the complexity of the resulting code written. Agree or disagree?