I like that the author points out that trying to write a new interpreter is not a good idea. However, to call that DDD, and then to say DDD is a lie is where I

I like that the author points out that trying to write a new interpreter is not a good idea. However, to call that DDD, and then to say DDD is a lie is where I would disagree. I guess one could say that it's DDD taken to some extreme, but I would just call it a poor choice as the author points out. Also I assume that the author is equating DDD with Data-Oriented Programming. Here's a good book on the topic: https://www.manning.com/books/data-oriented-programming?ar=true&lpse=A https://www.manning.com/books/data-oriented-programming?ar=t... One thing I don't love about the book though is that it tries to demonstrate how to do DOP with Object-Oriented languages, which looks to be difficult to accomplish