I don't have to. That's already explained in the standard literature on the topics of the object-relational mismatch and on functional critique of mutable state.
> You keep pointing to the object-relational mismatch, which, while a thing, has no more to do with OOP than it does functional programming. It pertains to object-based programming. That is something else entirely.
And I say that the object-relational mismatch does have more to do with OOP than it does with functional programming. If you want to make unfounded claims, two can play at that game.
> However, OOP was already and explicitly defined by the article that setup the context for the following discussion, and the definition used is Kay's
Point to the place on the doll where the article explicitly defines OOP and uses Kay's definition to do it.
> Perhaps it is that you are purposefully trying to go off-topic? Indeed, this thread started because someone (not me!) questioned exactly that.
And yet that person never came back. You can't rule out the possibility that this person was satisfied by my subsequent clarifications.
> If it is simply that you don't know how to clarify what you mean, why not just say so?
You first.