There was a big discussion on HN recently about what exactly the message-passing-oop is, with no apparent consensus: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=194165

There was a big discussion on HN recently about what exactly the message-passing-oop is, with no apparent consensus: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19416511 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19416511 I don't have a strong opinion on the topic of OOP vs FP, but it's worth keeping in mind that people mean different things when they say OOP. Furthermore (and more importantly for this particular discussion), it also appears that people mean different things even when they specify they mean alan-kay/message-passing variant of OOP. For many, it's something like Smalltalk and Ruby, with their very late binding and ability for objects to respond to messages even without matching methods. Others find Erlang and Elixir to be good embodiment of Alan Kay's vision. And the third groups seems to define it as "kind of like how bacteria communicate, and kind of like microservices", which is really too fuzzy for meaningful discussion. In your link, Alan says: "OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things." That is... quite vague.