> I feel like OO is okay if objects implement good well thought out interfaces.
I find that much of what I do is taking something from structure A and manipulating structure B. If you are a slave to OOP, you end up bolting that method to either one or the other object when really it affects both and belongs in a separate place entirely.
The other big issue I have with OOP is frequently I don't want or care for reference passing, I just want value passing. That is usually the place where I start using objects is when passing references is useful.
It's particularly useful if you are building a thing which requires multiple steps and you need that state to persist between steps. I've seen it done well with functional programming, but for me it's just easier to build something out with an object that holds persistent state.
I find that much of what I do is taking something from structure A and manipulating structure B. If you are a slave to OOP, you end up bolting that method to either one or the other object when really it affects both and belongs in a separate place entirely.
The other big issue I have with OOP is frequently I don't want or care for reference passing, I just want value passing. That is usually the place where I start using objects is when passing references is useful.
It's particularly useful if you are building a thing which requires multiple steps and you need that state to persist between steps. I've seen it done well with functional programming, but for me it's just easier to build something out with an object that holds persistent state.