Look, poita, I generally agree on everything you've said, but you, I and A. Stapanov will leave this world unchanged as proposing ultimate solutions like 'world does not fit into a tree -- do not use OOP' will make people wonder why not to when it has proven to work very well in practice.
Well first off, Stepanov already has changed the way programming works by co-inventing generic programming and developing the concept of iterators.
Second, if OOP works so well in practice then why has Go removed it? Why is C still such a popular language?
And where is your evidence that OOP is working "very well" in practice? It is used in practice, yes, but that doesn't mean that it is working, or that it cannot be improved. Sure, programs are being written in the OOP style, but who's to say that they couldn't have been written twice as quickly or perform twice as well using some other method?
Can you suggest a method that allows simple design for complex relations and processes? Can you suggest how to reimplement Microsoft Office 2007 for example with another concept such that the development wont take years?
Not yet, but I'm working on it, and I like to think that I'm getting somewhere.
OOP helps us reduce the source code complexity towards the lower bound AND get a meaningful (for us) model of it.
Prove it, or at least show some justification for the claim. I've only found OOP useful when I need run time polymorphism, which is fairly rare.
I see you want innovation, I see you have plans and ideas and so do I, but what do people want? Completely parameterized functions returning all potentially usefu information along the way? Yeah, right...
No? Might want to read my last post again. The idea of completely parameterizing every function is absurd to me.
In our engineer mind it's a nice and useful idea, we know what's going on, we know what we want and how it should be, but the 16 year old that SAP just hired and teached .NET does not care, is not aware of the situation, he's happy to inherit the Dictionary class and customize it, because it works!
20 years ago people just wrote min and max functions for floats, ints, doubles and whatever type they needed, and it worked! Does that mean that templates haven't helped? No.
Again, just because we can get by with the status quo doesn't mean that it cannot be improved, and it doesn't mean that the status quo cannot change.
Of course we can make things better, but nobody wants to, they are still considered high-technology and enough to keep people happy.
Umm, what? Everything continually changes and improves. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.