He opened up the response with an analogy about cells. For an analogy to have any use at all, it must illustrate a contrast between two relevant ideas. The ar

He opened up the response with an analogy about cells. For an analogy to have any use at all, it must illustrate a contrast between two relevant ideas. The article is entitled "Why OO Sucks" and written by the author of Erlang. I "projected" that the comment to which I replied was defending the non-suckiness of OO by using the cell analogy to contrast with erlang. Are you saying that was a leap? What you are saying makes sense: there is more than one useful model. But that point should be made in the context of Joe Armstrong's specific criticisms; not claiming that OOP is as modular as a cell and erlang is not.