> same reason why it took some time for pure functional programming to take off too
To be pedantic, almost nobody is using a pure functional language even modernly. Almost all languages that support functional programming are hybrid systems at this point in time, and still have anti-functional constructs such as classes and objects.
I dare say, it would be very difficult to maintain a large system that was purely functional. Some of the concepts revolving around OOP are indeed quite good and lead to better organized, more easily understood codebases.
The future is probably a hybrid approach, not a pure approach as some advocates would prefer.
Not really, at least not in my terminology. Classes (in the pfp world) are pretty much just a bundle of free functions with some predefined bindings that are available to all those free functions, and putting those functions into their own namespace.
Those are valid things to do even in pfp.
data classes are technically similar or even identical but conceptually a different thing (though of course also useful and needed).
To be pedantic, almost nobody is using a pure functional language even modernly. Almost all languages that support functional programming are hybrid systems at this point in time, and still have anti-functional constructs such as classes and objects.
I dare say, it would be very difficult to maintain a large system that was purely functional. Some of the concepts revolving around OOP are indeed quite good and lead to better organized, more easily understood codebases.
The future is probably a hybrid approach, not a pure approach as some advocates would prefer.