[notorious_pgb]

I think that "OOP" is an incredibly overloaded term which makes it difficult to speak about intelligibly or usefully at this point.

Are we talking about using classes at all? Are we arguing about Monoliths vs [Micro]services?

I don't really think about "OOP" very often. I also don't think about microservices. What some people seem to be talking about when they say they use "OOP" seems strange and foreign to me, and I agree we shouldn't do it like that. But what _other_ people mean by "OOP" when they say they don't use it seems entirely reasonable and sane to me.

[kragen]

> Are we talking about using classes at all?

Using classes hasn't been a part of the definition of OOP since the Treaty of Orlando. Pre-ECMAScript-2015 JS is a mainstream OOP language that doesn't have classes, just prototypes. (Arguably ECMAScript 2015 classes aren't really classes either.)

[mmcromp]

OOP isn't just about classes... It can also be about JavaScript classes!

[TZubiri]

"I don't really think about "OOP" very often. I also don't think about microservices."

Why even comment in an article about those topics then?

[notorious_pgb]

Primarily poor wording on my part.

I think in terms of language features and patterns which actually mean something. OOP doesn't really mean anything to me, given that it doesn't seem to mean anything consistent in the industry.

Of course I work with classes, inheritance, interfaces, overloading, whatever quite frequently. Sometimes, I eschew their usage because the situation doesn't call for it or because I am working in something which also eschews such things.

What I don't do is care about "OOP" is a concept in and of itself.

[cpursley]

> overloaded

I see what you did there