Module Oriented Programming: An OOP Alternative?

1. The key thing you don't seem to understand about OOP is that it decouples actual data ("Floopsy", 38) from the meaning of the data (name, age). The meaning can be applies across all conceivable 'instances' of a Rabbit. However, you appear to have tightly coupled a "Floopsy",38 and Rabbit. How would you define another rabbit "Flapsy", and not have a conflict with the name "Rabbit". How are you going to create new rabbits given an external data source?

2. Your example is flawed here, because you would use composition over inheritance for this in OOP anyway. Inheritance should be used only for "is-a" relationships. If you've been using it for "has-a" relationship - throw away whichever book told you to do so.

4. With the loss of abstraction, you lose polymorphism - the ability to use the same piece of code on different types. Either that, or your language will use duck typing - now you have another problem.

5. Your ScoreCard module here is doing exactly the same as a static class, or class with all static fields would be doing anyway - you've not solved any problem - it's just polishing global state in a pretty box.