I largely agree with the author, but I think the reason for the "failure" of the object oriented model has more to do with the promises it made. Object Oriented

I largely agree with the author, but I think the reason for the "failure" of the object oriented model has more to do with the promises it made. Object Oriented Programing was supposed to make programming more understandable to the average human brain. In this respect, it's largely failed. If functional programming is thriving, I feel that it's only because FP has been more honest with its goals, and has done a better job achieving them. FP is supposed to be mathematical in nature. It's uncomfortable to learn, but once you do, FP languages, for the most part, live up to their billing. What is really needed is a new paradigm that is what OOP was supposed to be: programming that matches the patterns of human thought. In this respect, I think the author's suggestion of OOP-style modularization with FP-style pattern matching and function mapping is the future of programming.