Because they want to promote discussion and exchange opinions, and maybe advice others against something that they think is a bad idea. To just silently avoid stuff is a very stifling and unproductive way to handle things.

They do not badmouth OOP. It is not a human being with reputation and feelings. They criticize its usage.

But he is criticizing the design and fundamentals of OOP. Something doesn't have to be human or have a reputation to be badmouthed...

If we fail to point out the harmful effects of excessive OO usage then there is a higher likelihood of encountering it as legacy code written by people who didn't know any better. This can lead to wasted time and decreased job satisfaction.

He is the father of Erlang, so he did Just use your favorite methodology to get the job done. already.

Why do they have to bad mouth it? Advertising, of the hey come check out my oil, it is so much better than your regular oil verity.

We, the software development professionals, have learned some things about the properties of OO techniques and should share that knowledge.

People use OO as a way to attack good design and defend junk. Here is an example:

> We believe bound method references are harmful because they detract from the simplicity of the Java programming language and the pervasively object-oriented character of the APIs.

From here:

http://java.sun.com/docs/white/delegates.html

I don't know the context of the post, but remember that Erlang is a community effort, not a dictatorship. He has to expose his arguments and motives in order to keep using his favourite methodology.

OOP as collection of some practical principles to structure code - is good.

But mandatory OOP and OOP as religion is something unforgivable for me.