[cessor]

> Checking the validity of the data is only necessary once.

Exactly, which is why a class is the perfect singular location to place it. The object itself is just a pointer, the method doesn't get copied around, so object appear to be the perfect method to localize code.

> unexpected exceptions

True, exceptions introduce a communicative issue, but so does returning in-band values.

For example, what should the result of

    open('file.txt').read()

be, when the current user does not have permissions to read file.txt?

Different approaches exist:

    status, content = read('file.txt')
    content = read('file.txt', &status)
    status = read(&content)

I wouldn't argue against any of them, although I have my preferences of course. I like the exception model here, but you are right, rare exceptions, communicated poorly can be surprising and painful.

> Comprehensibility is in no way related to using objects.

On itself this statement is false, ... (hear me out)

> It all depends on the quality of the naming

... But this makes me understand what you're trying to say, and I 100% agree with it. In fact, I conducted some experimental research on identifier naming: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10664-018-9621-... (Sci-hub or I can provide a preprint).

You are right in that objects and their use don't automagically turn a codebase in a field of readily availabe knowledge. Many mechanisms applied in OOP languages really work AGAINST comprehension (for example, buried exceptions originating from deep within an object graph). But still, objects are tightly coupled to comprehension, even historically speaking. They were first used to make it possible to model physical simulations without requiring users to know much about computer architectures (Simula 67). Objects are meant to "model", that is, symbolically represent concepts, entities or physical things in such a way that they might show agentic behavior. This is fundamentally different from having stupid data, smart functions but actually a completley different means of "Erkenntnis" (translates to "insight", but is more accurately conceived as "Epistemology"). The relationship between objects and readability / comprehension is complex, but I wouldn't call them "in no way related" (OOP can break comprehension, but it was invented to improve it. Irony.)

Also I would, again, like to second your words: Identifier naming might be the most imporant aspect of readability and comprehensibility.