>That's not constructive, because experts also know there's a lot to learn from OO, and not everything about it is bad.

Isn't this statement the same? You don't get into the details of who these experts are, what they like about OOP. You summarize the issue because that's what humans end up doing rather than writing a whole essay about what's so great about OOP. Also you're communicating with someone who you presume already knows the details. You're a parody of your own statements.

You create the opposite fashion trend to hate on people who hate OOP which I see plenty of nowadays. Literally half the posts on this thread follow your ideology:

"I don't fully understand either paradigm so rather then picking the fashion trend I decide to make up a new one and be one of those people waving white flags and calling everything apples and oranges because I can't figure out which is worse or which is better."

Since you're unable to find one paradigm better than the other you think others are just being opinionated on the details, so you declare: It's All the Same! Everything is equal! This is pure fantasy. OOP does not stand on equal ground to FP or even Procedural programming. It's like comparing Hitler to Mother Teresa, not all things in this universe are equal.

When you look deeply you will find that there IS absolutely something wrong with OOP. It's not a little detail thing. There is something fundamentally wrong with OOP. Not only that, but you will find that the "experts" in CS have largely discounted OOP.

I can assure you the "experts" largely discount OOP by a huge margin. OOP doesn't even have a formal definition.

By experts I mean academics who are experts in programming language creation using formal and mathematical theory. Someone like Martin Fowler is not an expert because all Martin Fowler does is classify concepts with qualitative descriptions and big words.

Let me clarify. An example of an expert in PL theory is someone who can create a programming language that can prove itself correct. Essentially programming languages that are not only type safe, but logically safe to the maximum degree. Idris is an example of one of these programming languages. Imagine writing in one shot, no incremental testing a 9000 line program with zero bugs. Studies in formal verification enable this with cost... and people who know this stuff are an example of experts in the field.

An example of someone posing to be an expert is someone drawing 3 boxes and using lines to connect it to a single parent and calling that the "Trinarium Pattern" in order to sound like an expert. This is largely what "OOP experts" are including Martin Fowler.

You don't believe me? Why don't you try to find a book on the formal theory of OOP. One that starts off with the axiomatic foundations of OOP. You want to know why "lambda calculus" books exist but there are no "Object Oriented Calculus" books? Because there is no formal theory of OOP period. It literally doesn't exist among "experts."

If anything this post should at least point you or someone in the direction of why OOP is just bad. OOP doesn't have formal foundations... no one has bothered to turn it into a theory or science because it's just that bad.