I think OO is successful because people by our very nature love to name and categorize things. The way most people see OO, it is ALL about naming/categorizing a

I think OO is successful because people by our very nature love to name and categorize things. The way most people see OO, it is ALL about naming/categorizing and inheritance. Things belong to other things and are related to other things and so on and so forth. Academia especially loves naming things and creating structure and hierarchy. OO makes programming sound scientific, like physics or biology or something. The business world loves the idea that you could have these reusable objects that would let you just fit a program together like legos. Given the huge technology investments, it sounded like a great idea, but it hasn't really worked out that way for the most part. It sounds silly to think that OO really took off because it feeds on the psychological need to name things, but I think that's a big part of it. Even the Bible says that Adam's first and primary job was to name all the animals of the earth. Even if you aren't a believer, a book written thousands of years ago and handed down from generation to generation where it explains that the first man's job was to name things I think speaks a great deal about how humans are obsessed with names and naming things and have been for a very long time. In that way, it wouldn't at all be surprising that OO would be successful. If anything, things that take away the ability to name and organize things in a way that people enjoy would be something that fewer people take up unless there is some other psychological benefit that is larger than the benefit of naming and organizing things.