Guys, chill out. "OOP has failed" should be read in context of the promise that everything can be effectively implemented with OOP, that you can make objects f

Guys, chill out. "OOP has failed" should be read in context of the promise that everything can be effectively implemented with OOP, that you can make objects for everything and your entire program built out of it. The masses adopted it with pretty poor results -- and the poor results prompted people to say that "it has failed". It just means that it has failed to live up to its promise. It does not mean OOP is not useful. Quite opposite, we have learned a lot about when it is very useful to use OOP. And also when it probably is a poor idea. I personally mix and match OOP and functional styles. I will typically create objects to describe domain model because it is super useful to talk about operations on entities. But I will call these objects from functional context where it makes much more sense to create infrastructure from functions that can easily deal with different types of data. No programming paradigm is clearly better than others and no programming paradigm is without flaws. I would strongly suggest treating every person that says otherwise with extreme caution -- people tend to say these things at certain stages of their evolution as programmers until they have enough time to learn ins and outs of all things.