In my experience, the thing that's wrong about object-oriented programming is not the object-orientation itself, but the over-application of it. Or the misappl

In my experience, the thing that's wrong about object-oriented programming is not the object-orientation itself, but the over-application of it. Or the misapplication of it. If an app is really about dataflow, but programmers have tried to shoehorn in a pedantic OO model, one can often end up with lots of nouns with names that talk about How (exposing too much detail) and lots of code that serves to stick data in this cubby, with other code taking that data out, then sticking it into another cubby, ad nauseum. In that case, the relationships between the cubbyholes, the data, and the dataflow are only maintained through naming conventions, which can in turn be misapplied or neglected. This makes following the dataflow into detective work to circumvent missed naming conventions, where it should really just be following implementers/senders/references in the standard way provided for by the language. since a model is often looked at as a representation of real-world objects, a programmer thinking in OO is likely to stick every conceivable property and behavior around the imaginary object into the model code This is where YAGNI comes into play. (You Ain't Gonna Need It) Never implement something unless you have empirical data to back up the need. If you implement according to imagination... well, the imagination of creative tech people is often practically unbounded. So just imagine how badly scaled the result could be.