That is a wall of text that I admit I could not fully read or understand. It seems to argue that OOP is bad but what I gathered from it is that it argues that c

That is a wall of text that I admit I could not fully read or understand. It seems to argue that OOP is bad but what I gathered from it is that it argues that complexity is bad and that we should make things simple. The problem is that complexity is unavoidable and even if we make every part individually as simple as possible the final system will still be complex and hard to understand and test. OOP was supposed to help build the simple parts and then system would be easier to understand. It failed, not because it is inherently bad but because it enabled people to build more complex systems at which point the end result became hard to understand and test. FP might help a bit by forcing certain style of development which could make current systems easier to understand but the end result will be the same - it will reach the point where the systems built with FP style are hard to understand and test. What we should be developing is software to help us understand complex systems - both software systems and real world systems - and then the style in which software is developed will become less important and we will be able to understand how the system is working as a whole and drill into how individual parts are interacting. A good version of this software would allow more complex system to be created but it should also help with understanding them regardless of the level of complexity.