> That isn't what OOP is good for: OOP is good for evolving maintainable, understandable, testable, expressive code over time. Whoa that’s quite the claim. Mos

> That isn't what OOP is good for: OOP is good for evolving maintainable, understandable, testable, expressive code over time. Whoa that’s quite the claim. Most large projects built heavily on OO principles I’ve seen or worked on have become an absolute unmaintainable mess over time, with spider webs of classes referencing classes. To say nothing of DI, factoryfactories and all the rest. I believe you might have had some good experiences here. But I’m jealous, and my career doesn’t paint the same rosy picture from the OO projects I’ve seen. I believe most heavily OO projects could be written in about 1/3 as many lines if the developers used an imperative / dataflow oriented design instead. And I’m not just saying that - I’ve seen ports and rewrites which have born out around that ratio. (And yes, the result is plenty maintainable).