>>31,32
It's a different point of view. Yours is enterprise. But I think OO is overrated.
About the fundamental feature you call ``messages'', most OO implementations i've seen lack a built-in implementation of signals (if that is what you mean, perhaps I misunderstood). Implementing it manually is often piece of cake: a function that sends, another that receives, or some variation of that. It may be still like a function in a struct: the identity of the object, if you prefer calling it that way, is kept within it fields, and signals or messages may be still interpreted in different ways according to such fields.
This signal or message thing is, then, a fancy way to say "method call", where method is a fancy way to say "function associated with struct".
What I find strange is that you are defending OO without mentioning the only feature that is worth, inheritance.