Actually, "data-oriented design" is very old, if you look how some old COBOL apps are written, what JCL was about, etc. But I think you completely missed my ov

Actually, "data-oriented design" is very old, if you look how some old COBOL apps are written, what JCL was about, etc. But I think you completely missed my overall point about being patronising, meaning, the idea that the author of the language/library knows better than the user of the language/library. The reason why Java is so guilty of this is that its other competitors at the time (C++, Common Lisp, Python) at least acknowledged other paradigms than OOP, and were not so fundamentalist about it. (Smalltalk is a notable exception, but it is not as patronising in other ways as Java is. But in general, OOP tends to be patronising because its central tenet is that the definition of the object should alone determine its properties, they shouldn't be changed/imposed from the outside. Which is a good rule of thumb, but sometimes in practice becomes an obstacle.)