After having formally learned OOP, I switched to doing procedural programming over the last 5 years..... the programming aspects of my work are usually minimal -- so I'm not having to organize a large project. It just seemed way faster for me to type out my ideas in say, C, than C++ (but I sometimes did use C++ libraries so that I could be lazy about the order of declarations, etc). There was also the mild benefit of C code being more efficiently run than C++.
But for huge projects, OOP always seemed like a more appealing paradigm. It's a way of organizing your thoughts that seems to minimize problems (e.g. debugging time, re-use of code, etc.) in the long run. This is why I had planned on re-familiarizing myself with C++.
Edit:
I read through a few sections of the article. From what I read, there is some interesting speculation, like the GUI-OOP relationship. But that isn't really a criticism of OOP per-se, and it is lacking in convincing references or examples.
And then he engages in similar rhetorical tricks that he accuses OOP proponents of using. For example, the communism analogy was somewhat weak, and very transparent. If you're trying to convince a US audience that anything is bad, you'll usually do well to associate it with communism or socialism (as though pure capitalism is flawless). And the analogy doesn't work on many levels. They are obviously completely different ideologies... "apples and oranges". And the idea that they were both good in theory and bad in practice is questionable, and isn't argued -- rather, it's just stated. Even if it were true, that's a vague superficial connection you could make with many ideas; why choose communism? So that part seemed contrived and unconvincing... it made the author lose a lot of credibility in my opinion.
But I haven't read through the whole thing yet
.
