Procedural code is:
- simpler to analyze, audit and (formally verify)
- simpler to multithread
- maps to what a program does: a series of transformations applied to an input
- maps to low-level construct in the CPU, i.e. call/ret
- doesn't force you to use heap memory and suffer cache misses due to rampant pointer indirection.
Note: I intentionally avoid saying functional programming.
There is a balance between having no state (Haskell) and allowing mutation because mutation is useful (C, OCaml).
It is still the best way to architecture big systems. I'm not talking about classes, I'm talking about decentralised, decoupled, small systems, communicating with each other using messages.
Right. There are many places where OO fits well.
As you mentioned in the medium/large on the services/systems level. But it is also a good paradigm to model pretty much any real, outside thing. A database, a file-system abstraction (loading configs etc.), an external web-service, a peripheral device (keyboard, mouse), a GUI context (the whole thing, not the parts) and so on.
In these cases we want the properties of OOP: local retention, message passing, abstraction through public interfaces and state-machine-like behavior.
The issue arises when we model data with OO: A Person is not an object in your system. It is an associated data-structure. Treat it as such. A User interacts with an interface (CLI, config files, GUI...) treat those as objects. The data about the User is just data about the User.
I don't have an authoritative opinion to offer here. I'm just a dude who writes programs. This is merely the model that works for me.
If we get to the crux of the matter, what you like there is the tree structure (which definitely is the end result you want) the problem is if you store your data in a tree structure (whether by OO, file system or json document) you cannot easily express that same information but in a different tree layout
Trees couple relationships and things together in such a way that they are hard to tease apart. If you think about your brain what it does is stores the sum of your knowledge in a graph, then at runtime your brain can construct any number of trees from that graph easily
You can think of yourself as being a member of the tree of life and a member of your workplace hierarchy very easily, your data store should be graph like and your query language should be able to pull trees out of at will, checkout Clojure's Fulcro or any EAVT database if you want to see how that works in practise
That's not OOP but Actors or event loops.
On the flipside, that kind of code is often much easier to debug. For me, the worst cases debugging wise have all been crazy inheritance messes.