Tut-tut.. not so aggressive 
OO and functional programming have a lot in common. See f.e. what Erik Meijer says here:
I think what sometimes Erlang people say is that Erlang, for example, doesnât have objects
or something they have actors or you send messages, but I would say, I like to look at
languages and look at what is common instead of what is different, instead of saying
âErlang is differentâ, I look at Erlang and say âitâs really very similar to objects because if
I send you a message, youâre an actor, youâre doing a pattern match on that message and
you have some internal state when you have a tail recursion that you can wait for the next
messageâ. Thatâs really just like virtual dispatch, where the pattern match is just looking
what is my dynamic type. And the parameter that you pass around, the internal state that
you pass around in that tail recursive loop is like your instance variables. So I would say
there is more commonality than differences, so I would say Erlang has a lot of great properties,
for example thatâs very cheap threads then you can build amazing things because now you can
use concurrency as a control structure but I would say it is really, for me and I think thatâs a
really positive thing, very close to object oriented programming and dynamic dispatch.
