>>21
I am >>18,20.
Again, the problem is not that OOP has no ideas. The problem is that it lays claim to all ideas. When programmers succeed, OOP advocates say it's because they were doing OOP correctly. Conversely, when they fail, it's because they're doing OOP wrong, even if their methodology was precisely what these same OOP advocates were preaching the previous day. Inheritance vs. composition is one example that comes up all the time, but they have the same problem with state, concurrency, and fucking if/then statements. They have an answer for everything, but they can't actually help you with anything.
The modular programming people have their heads bolted on much tighter, as do the actor model and CSP people. They clearly defined the scopes of their methodologies and were transparent about their weaknesses. OOP people can't tell you what weaknesses OOP has, because it doesn't have any, because it's everything. If there's a dot in your code, it's OOP. If there's not a dot, it's still OOP. It was never a coherent idea. A few languages took over the world by attaching themselves to the hype, and as soon as anyone stopped to examine it, it dissolved like an optical illusion. It was never much more than that anyway.