This might be the best defense of OOP I've ever read. It makes a good argument for the *motivation* of objects, instead of making technical arguments that are often flawed and depend on particular implementations, which themselves feel backwards and awkward in hindsight.
Conversation
Replying to
"Event-driven architecture, state machines et al." 250bpm.com/blog:25 OOP isn't even the main point of that blog post, that's an aside to demonstrate that recognizing "how we think about the problem" and "what kind of thinking humans excel at" might reap important benefits.
1