> Where I disagree is on encapsulation being the “good” part of OOP. Encapsulation, as a general idea, is positive. Controlling boundaries, hiding representatio

> Where I disagree is on encapsulation being the “good” part of OOP. Encapsulation, as a general idea, is positive. Controlling boundaries, hiding representation, and enforcing invariants are all valuable. But encapsulation as realized through objects is where the deeper problem lies. Objects themselves are not modular, and the act of encapsulating a concept into an object breaks modularity at the moment the boundary is drawn. I’m personally with you here. Just in my circle they see it positively. But I agree with you: as long as it helps modularity, great, but also have many downsides that you describe very well. Your last paragraph also perfectly aligned with my views. I think you are coming from a functional PoV, which luckily seems to have some more traction in the last decade or two. Sadly, before you say it, often are underline the parts of functional programming that are not the most useful you address here… but maybe, some day…