Exactly right. OOP is a historical failure. We can't be using OOP to describe [immutable] value oriented programming [roughly functional programming] and FRP, u

Exactly right. OOP is a historical failure. We can't be using OOP to describe [immutable] value oriented programming [roughly functional programming] and FRP, unless we devoid OOP of most of its historical meaning. Historical OOP orthodoxy took great lengths to contrast objects to values. For example, support for values in OOP mainstream languages has been tepid. With Java still failing to fully support value objects at the language level, project Lombok notwithstanding. With Python adding dataclasses support as late as 2017. There is a reason for decades of dragging the foot: OOP orthodoxy shuns values in favor of objects, defined as "identity, [...] state (data) and behavior (code)" [0]. Insisting on "objects" as the only right way to structure programming _is_ the historical failure of OOP. No amount of late attempts at co-opting other paradigms under the OOP umbrella is going to fix that. I for one welcome the quiet morphing of OOP into VOP/FP. Makes life as a programmer sane again. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_(computer_science) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_(computer_science)