To clarify, I don't think OO is natural for all problems, and I don't think it is natural for all people either. But for many people, it is natural. Do you de

To clarify, I don't think OO is natural for all problems, and I don't think it is natural for all people either. But for many people, it is natural. Do you describe the world around you using nouns? Anything you can name is an object. When you hear me use the word "pencil" you know I am describing something that's used for writing on paper, containing a substance like graphite that is probably erasable, and maybe even has its own little eraser on the end. Naming the object allows us to communicate and reason about it together; the ability to name and classify objects is the most essential element of OO (imagine a language where you can create classes but not name them; would it still be OO? I would argue it is not). Of course this is not the only way to model the world. Maybe to you the act of writing or drawing is more important; the pencil or pen or marker is secondary. Or maybe the connections between objects is important to you. Or perhaps it is not the objects that are important (i.e. those things which are acted upon) but the subjects (those things which act). Whatever model feels most natural to you is probably valid. As the saying goes, "all models are wrong but some are useful"; this applies to the OO model as much as any other.