>I'm guessing your comments are based on seeing a lot of poor practices masquerading as OOP which affects what you think OOP actually is
I personally feel that the current OOP model eventually devolves into the bullet points you listed given enough complexity.
One reason why I think this occurs is that there is no concept of a 'message' in OOP, only methods or functions of a class. There's explicit coupling even when calling a method with no arguments because you know the method is valid for that object.
Contrast this with the example of the 'listener' in the room. A speaker broadcasts his message but the independent agents ultimately decide what to do with that message.
The OOP approach calls "object->listen" on each listener. My approach simply broadcasts the message and lets the objects determine how to handle it themselves.
I personally feel that the current OOP model eventually devolves into the bullet points you listed given enough complexity.
One reason why I think this occurs is that there is no concept of a 'message' in OOP, only methods or functions of a class. There's explicit coupling even when calling a method with no arguments because you know the method is valid for that object.
Contrast this with the example of the 'listener' in the room. A speaker broadcasts his message but the independent agents ultimately decide what to do with that message.
The OOP approach calls "object->listen" on each listener. My approach simply broadcasts the message and lets the objects determine how to handle it themselves.