I came across this writeup a couple months ago, and composed a reply (via an e-mail to a colleague), but never posted it.
Some people think
objects have failed.
My response:
Objects have "failed" in that they've tried to be the be-all, end-all solution to all problems, while not being powerful enough to be the be-all, end-all. On the other hand, they've succeeded in that they are a good (often great) tool in many cases. I often find that objects are nice just for state-encapsulation: keeps me from worrying about certain details at that moment; I might not even be abstracting anything of note.
And I think it comes down to this: procedural, functional, and OO programming tools are just that. You use one or the other where they might be the most appropriate and most practical. Take these few lines from a script in a project I'm working on: (disclaimer: yes, I wrote them).
file(os.path.join('.', full_name, f.rstrip('.tmpl')),'w').writelines(
string.Template(file(os.path.join(
os.environ['TACKDIR'],'template-manage',f),'r'
).read()).substitute({'mod_name':mod_name})
)
That is an interesting combination of functional (only two state variables: 'f' from a surrounding loop, and full_name) and object oriented (file and string.Template methods) programming. And the combination works, works well, and is only one logical line of code, to boot.
I don't think it's a matter of object, functional, or procedural styles failing, it's about having a good knowledge of all three, and their capabilities, and being able to make realistic and practical decisions about what will be the best in a given situation. It's also about using a language that lets you combine the three in a mix that works best for you and the given requirements.
(In this case, that language is Python, but that's peripheral.)
