> This experience radicalized me against ... My problem with OO bashing is not that it isn't deserved but seems in denial about pathological abstraction in oth

> This experience radicalized me against ... My problem with OO bashing is not that it isn't deserved but seems in denial about pathological abstraction in other paradigms. Functional programming quickly goes up it's own bum with ever more subtle function composition, functor this, monoidal that, effect systems. I see the invention of inheritance type layering just in adhoc lazy evaluated doom pyramids. Rich type systems spiral into astronautics. I can barely find the code in some defacto standard crates instead it's deeply nested generics... generic traits that take generic traits implemented by generic structs called by generic functions. It's an alphabet soup of S, V, F, E. Is that Q about error handling, or an execution model or data types? Who knows! Only the intrepid soul that chases the tail of every magic letter can tell you. I wish there were a panacea but I just see human horrors whether in dynamically-typed monkey-patch chaos or the trendiest esoterica. Hell I've seen a clean-room invention of OO in an ancient Fortran codebase by an elderly academic unaware it was a thing. He was very excited to talk about his phylogenetic tree, it's species and shared genes. The layering the author gives as "bad OO" admin/user/guest/base will exist in the other styles with pros/cons. At least the OO separates each auth level and shows the relationship between them which can be a blessed relief compared to whatever impenetrable soup someone will cook up in another style.