> Real-world objects don't have this property -- it would be like the gas tank hatch disappearing from my car after I fill it up, and reappearing once I drive a

> Real-world objects don't have this property -- it would be like the gas tank hatch disappearing from my car after I fill it up, and reappearing once I drive around for a minute. The entire point I was making in the article was that OOP is a terrible model for the real world. This is at odds with the claim made that the universe decomposes politely into objects and that OOP is a natural fit for modeling tasks. I think an important thing to remember is that sometimes we don't want paradigms that correspond precisely to the real world. Airplanes didn't become a practical reality until we stopped trying to mimic the flapping actions of birds. The suggestion of having a state machine driving the availability of actions seems tangential to the modeling task, and is instead related to correctness. Personally, I would take correctness over closeness-to-reality every time in modeling terms.