> People forget what the intent of OOP originally was. Not really. > OOP was envisioned as a way to manage software projects with many contributors at a time

> People forget what the intent of OOP originally was. Not really. > OOP was envisioned as a way to manage software projects with many contributors at a time when we didn't have half the tools for hiding context that we do now. No, the purpose of "OOP" is specifically for "hiding context" by encapsulating implementation logic exposed via a collaboration contract. > Micro-services and micro-kernels are far far far more prevalent these days. Non-sequitur. > Garbage collection was also far less of a thing in that era, as all programmers were squeezing every last iota out of the hardware. This literally has nothing to do with a programming paradigm. > Hence rogue pointers were far more of a risk. > Multi-core? Haha Again, this literally has nothing to do with a programming paradigm. > I know this is not particularly relevant to the original article, but if you don't know the history and the intent behind why something exists, you are reasonably likely to misapply it. This is a wise statement, one which I hope you say aloud whilst reading this reply. > Most of the mistakes of OOP are from a lack of understanding of why things got invented in the first place. A programming paradigm is not the source of mistakes. Its practitioners certainly can be however.