[_fullpint]

Sure your first proposition is true. But many people realize you more than likely will not have a team of good to great programmers.

OOP is a massive foot gun for many programmers who are okay at best. And that effect is exponential as the project and their team grows.

[marcos100]

What isn't a footgun in the terms that you declared?

I believe people dislike OOP because the vast majority of code is written using OOP. If everything were written using data oriented programming or whatever, people would have the same reaction as they have regarding OOP.

[_fullpint]

>> What isn't a footgun in the terms that you declared?

There are definite degrees to this. But something like FP that declares f(x: X) => Y, instead of something like OOP where given context: x: X, y: Y and f() => void (where there is an effect on y) those are massively different scopes of problems.

It's not that you cannot do the previous in the latter, but that people -- especially those that are inexperienced and haven't dealt with the hell of a stateful programming -- routinely reach for as a solution to their problem.

>> I believe people dislike OOP because the vast majority of code is written using OOP.

Why do you believe that's the reason why? There's no implication here -- just a genuine curiosity as to how that was the conclusion.

>> If everything were written using data oriented programming or whatever, people would have the same reaction as they have regarding OOP.

DOP especially given one with a static language forces you to move from one type to your next to solve your problem, and handle your edge cases.

From experience DOP and FP can be intimidating, but usually end up being easier, and the development time, along with the time to stability are hugely reduced -- because it's inherently dumb.