>>17
Depends on the definition. Is OOP the same thing as the actor model, or modular programming, or procedural programming with type directed name resolution? OOP advocates tend to say "yes, all of the above" which is no use to anybody.
>>19
If you want to reply, just type some angle brackets and the post number.
Programming paradigms can be worth it when they clearly define their objectives, rules, and limitations. OOP sucks because it caught on as a buzzword without ever actually doing those parts. The first three attempts to make object-oriented languages all had totally different interpretations of the idea, and when you go back and examine what the goals are, they amount to modeling the problem domain with code, which describes literally all programming. Thus, the scope of OOP grew to encompass all programming, and its cult went around calling things OOP like wistful weebs amid sakura blossoms whispering "this, too, is yuri."