> Very often in code like that you see "struct" types filled with function pointers. Fair point. Though with the explicitness that's required to do this in C (

> Very often in code like that you see "struct" types filled with function pointers. Fair point. Though with the explicitness that's required to do this in C (you have to pass the actual struct pointer that would normally be the receiver, along with a general lack of inheritance) results in code that's much easier to understand than the patterns that the traditional OO languages have created for themselves. I suppose that's less of a criticism of OO itself and more of a criticism of the people who build languages that emphasize OO, and the general ecosystems that crop up around them. > written in a "pre-OO" language I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the "OO languages" go all the way back to Simula67, which predates C. Though at that point OO was still in its "academic" phase the way functional programming is today.