> Back in the '90s, "Object-Oriented" got redefined in popular imagination to "good". If your language or system was good, it was then by definition object-orie

> Back in the '90s, "Object-Oriented" got redefined in popular imagination to "good". If your language or system was good, it was then by definition object-oriented, and anything good had therefore to be called OO. Saying something was not actually OO (as we find here) was taken to mean it was not good, generating spurious conflict. A similar thing happened with functional programming.