I'm not sure I'd agree that OOP is beautiful. It's just nouns with verbs inside, which doesn't seem particularly better than nouns with verbs outside. I defini

I'm not sure I'd agree that OOP is beautiful. It's just nouns with verbs inside, which doesn't seem particularly better than nouns with verbs outside. I definitely would not agree that it "enables normal people to model complex systems". Not once in my entire career have I seen a business person provide anything of any value to a software's architecture. Even thinking they could is so strange to me I don't even know where to start to unpack it. Software architecture is so different to the processes it models, it would be nonsensical to even have them try. Like asking someone illiterate to organize a book. Wasn't that whole concept just marketing by Sun to sell Java and OOP to the world? These days everyone using Java uses so much spring and xml I'm not sure it even makes sense to call it OOP anymore. It's more like AOP+DI with a little OOP thrown in. If anything, I'd think trying to have a customer design your objects would result in a tremendous mess. The nouns and verbs they would think of are going to be extremely limiting once you add in the common needs like caching, parallelism, network boundaries, async processing, auth, logging, monitoring, protocol formatting, API versioning, etc. The hard parts we need help on from business people are understanding the business models completely, not where X function should live and if it should be in a class or not. And even if they did have strong opinions about that, logic is actually much easier to test when it's not in OOP, and I'd rather have automated unit tests.