There is the overhead when reusing code that the creator of Erlang famously described as a case when you wanted a banana but you got a gorilla holding the banana. Some claimed that under OOP writing tests is harder and it requires extra care to refactor.

Then the critics arrived on the scene, some of them quite disappointed. With OOP being followed by OOA (object-oriented analysis) and OOD (object-oriented design) it soon felt like everything you did in software had to be broken down to objects and their relationships to each other. After an initial hype period had promised improvements for modularising and organising large codebases, the idea was over applied.

If they are used to top-down programming or functional programming, which treats elements of code as precise mathematical functions, it takes some getting used to. It is fair to say that, generations later, the idea of organizing your code into larger meaningful objects that model the parts of your problem continues to puzzle programmers. In contrast, many people who have experience with computers initially think there is something strange about object oriented systems.” “Many people who have no idea how a computer works find the idea of object-oriented programming quite natural. In the August edition of Byte magazine in 1981, David Robson opens his article, which became the introduction of Object-Oriented Software Systems for many, by admitting up front that it is a departure from what many familiar with imperative, top-down programming are used to.

Why are git gui tools frowned upon