I believe object-orientation is dated

I don't know how many advances might be happening recently on some underground Smalltalk mailing-list, but in general, OOP has remained the same for decades.

Does everybody think it's good enough? Does nobody want new features that will make your code more expressive somehow? Watcha think?

>>35
I think he meant the "method composition" part, which the extent of its flexibility wasn't shown in that example. Its at least more flexible than simple method chaining over a specific object.

(define superfun (compose fun1 fun2 fun3))

(equal? (superfun "input")
        (fun1 (fun2 (fun3 "input"))))
; => #t
In light of the number of parenthesis in Lisp, the benefits of composition is apparent. The problem with "method composition" though is that it assumes prevalent immutable style of OO, but OO is very dependent on ad-hoc conventions.