My view of the purpose of object orientation
A while back I read Rise and Fall of Classic OOP. This caused me to realize that I am kind of a heathen as far as object oriented programming is concerned, probably because I came to explicit OO late and never actually learned how to do it the 'right way'. You see, to me object orientation is a technique for code organization and nothing more.
This gives me a very pragmatic view of when to write OO code and when not to; I use objects and classes where they make my code simpler, and I don't use them when they don't. I don't consider them something that has to be followed at all costs or as the only way to model the real world (or any arbitrary artificial world). If the real world entities that you're working with aren't amenable to being wedged into an OO hierarchy, then don't. Given the wide variety of both code structure and ways of organizing code so that it makes sense, it would be fairly absurd to say that OO is always the right answer; it is just one technique among many. Sometimes it's the right answer, sometimes not.
(Of course, some languages as so in love with OO that they don't give you a choice about it; you can't really have freestanding functions and data containers.)
I won't say that all of those OO examples that modeled the real world always struck me as a bit hokey and artificial, because honestly I never really thought that much about it (and any small example is hokey and artificial if you really look at it). But if people are switching towards my view of the purpose of OO, I'm all for it.
(I would be shocked if this was new and novel. I sure hope that lots of people have had this thought before me, because it just feels so obvious.)