In both OOP and FP, to know what a function (or a method) does, you need (at a minimum) to check its type signature. There are _many_ OOP languages which do not

In both OOP and FP, to know what a function (or a method) does, you need (at a minimum) to check its type signature. There are _many_ OOP languages which do not use explicit type signatures, and many FP languages which do; it seems to me that you have confused the OOP vs. FP issue with the issue of explicit vs. implicit typing, or perhaps with static typing vs. dynamic typing. There are languages available to suit pretty much every combination of those properties, so you can easily avoid whatever you don't like. Further, when you check a type signature, what you read is much more valuable in a pure FP context than in a typical OO context, because OO languages generally (1) allow and encourage the use of state, and (2) do not distinguish in the type system between functions/methods that use state and those that don't. The type signature of a pure function strongly constrains what that function can actually do - so much so that it's possible, and effective, to look up the function you need just by specifying the type that you expect it to have. In a typical OO language, the type signature indicates much less about a method's behavior, because its inputs include not only the parameters you provide, but also the entire "world" at the time it is invoked; similarly, its outputs include the entire "world" in addition to its return value. As an example, a pure function that takes no parameters can only be a constant, but an impure method that takes no parameters could play a song on the speakers, display a window on the screen, or launch a missile. FP and OOP certainly have both strengths and weaknesses. I suspect one reason that OOP catches so much flak around here is that people are more familiar with it, and the flaws in tools you're familiar with are easier to see. Unfortunately, when you're not familiar with a tool, it can also be easy to see flaws - flaws that aren't really flaws at all, but simply aspects of the tool you don't yet understand. The result of this, I think, is that one should ignore criticisms of OOP from people who aren't deeply familiar with it, and similar for shallow criticisms of FP. Unfortunately, there are a lot of both on Hacker News.