Hmm, okay, interesting. Strangely I've had to rewrite this response comment several times for several reasons. Correct me if you think I'm wrong or I am not grasping this.
I can see how procedural code in general has a very fixed structure and although it can jump around based on various conditions it is still a pretty fixed model. Things flow in one direction, they have to go through specific pathways, everything has to be pre-thought-out and preconceived. Then all of those preconceptions are solidified into a hard-wired program, and of course the lower-level you get the more that is true because at the lowest level everything is very rigid and fixed.
Then you have this `orientation` of looking at things in a more individualized manner, which we happen to call things objects, where you try to decouple some of the functionality from being so locked in to a fixed structure. You try to go from a totally linear world to more of a non-linear world where you don't have to do everything in these fixed sequences in order to directly access the appropriate objects or get specific objects to do certain things. Objects give you more freedom to kind of move from a linear forwards-executing structure to a more non-linear structure of program excecution. And since we tend to think of things in the world as confined objects it's probably easier to map worldly imaginings onto an object-oriented view of things. Instead of there being one `center` to the program, there are now multiple cores (objects) each relatively individual and independent and able to go about it's business. I guess that's a step in a better direction.
But what beyond that? What is beyond that separation between objects? What about a model where objects are not so definitely separate from each other and can merge and un-merge at will? (yeah, object nookie ;-) What about objects that are sometimes objects and sometimes everything, like electrons that come in and out of finite existence? What about every object having an underlying unity through which they all share common ground? Isn't that an even more useful and realistic model than traditional OO? I don't want all my objects to be lonely little objects. No man is an island. ;-)
I can see how procedural code in general has a very fixed structure and although it can jump around based on various conditions it is still a pretty fixed model. Things flow in one direction, they have to go through specific pathways, everything has to be pre-thought-out and preconceived. Then all of those preconceptions are solidified into a hard-wired program, and of course the lower-level you get the more that is true because at the lowest level everything is very rigid and fixed.
Then you have this `orientation` of looking at things in a more individualized manner, which we happen to call things objects, where you try to decouple some of the functionality from being so locked in to a fixed structure. You try to go from a totally linear world to more of a non-linear world where you don't have to do everything in these fixed sequences in order to directly access the appropriate objects or get specific objects to do certain things. Objects give you more freedom to kind of move from a linear forwards-executing structure to a more non-linear structure of program excecution. And since we tend to think of things in the world as confined objects it's probably easier to map worldly imaginings onto an object-oriented view of things. Instead of there being one `center` to the program, there are now multiple cores (objects) each relatively individual and independent and able to go about it's business. I guess that's a step in a better direction.
But what beyond that? What is beyond that separation between objects? What about a model where objects are not so definitely separate from each other and can merge and un-merge at will? (yeah, object nookie ;-) What about objects that are sometimes objects and sometimes everything, like electrons that come in and out of finite existence? What about every object having an underlying unity through which they all share common ground? Isn't that an even more useful and realistic model than traditional OO? I don't want all my objects to be lonely little objects. No man is an island. ;-)