Hey look, yet another critique of object-oriented programming. This one fails to define what it means by "object-oriented programming" (c.f. http://paulgraham.com/reesoo.html), conflates object-oriented programming and object-oriented programming languages, provides no examples (not even contrived examples), and makes obviously bogus assertions (e.g. data cannot be abstracted, data cannot be versioned).

Thank you for your feedback. With it I tried to clarify the point I was trying to make.

For a detailed critique comparing Object Oriented programming and Functional programming - this is a good read: http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-progr...

I don't believe you. :) After wasting my time reading the OP's article which had absolutely no content except a bunch of links to other articles criticizing OOP, I spent another 2-3 minutes reading your link and learned yet again nothing.

The first part of the article you linked literally consists of the author whining about the state of discussions regarding OOP and what HN user millstone said to him some time ago. It either needs a rewrite or to be summarized.

That's a neat article.

Another example of a well-designed layered API is Django REST framework. And it uses classes.