> Apart from my code, even most of my todos are simple step-by-step instructions to achieve something.
> [...]
> This could be why OOP/Imperative was often preferred over FP.
Though this doesn't really explain why OOP is preferred over imperative (since the former doesn't really correspond to a set of step-by-step instructions).
The latest no-OOP imperative language with any kind of market share is C. So everything that's terrible about C: unsafe manual memory, portability issues, tooling, no generics or overloading, horrible ergonomics, 2nd class functions, globals everywhere, etc, are all forever associated with imperative programming. OOP was born at the time of fixing all those problems, so those languages were a big improvement in ways that had nothing to do with OOP. Now that all the top languages are multi-paradigm, only a puritan would avoid OOP, and they'd have a tough time interacting with libraries and frameworks. So every codebase is a little wishy-washy and OOP wins by default. Imperative has no advocates left in industry or academia, so most people don't even think of it as a defensible design decision.
> [...]
> This could be why OOP/Imperative was often preferred over FP.
Though this doesn't really explain why OOP is preferred over imperative (since the former doesn't really correspond to a set of step-by-step instructions).