...The world is richer than what can be expressed with object-oriented syntax.

Consider a few common concepts that people universally use to understand and describe all systems – concepts that do not fit the object mold. The 'before/after' paradigm, as well that of 'cause/effect', and the notion of the 'state of the system' are amongst the most vivid examples. Indeed, the process of 'brewing coffee', or 'assembling a vehicle', or 'landing a rover on Mars' cannot be decomposed into simple objects. Yes, they are being treated that way in OO languages, but that's contrived and counter-intuitive. The sequence of the routine itself – what comes before what under what conditions based on what causality – simply has no meaningful representation in OO, because OO has no concept of sequencing, or state, or cause.

Processes are extremely common in the real world and in programming. Elaborate mechanisms have been devised over the years to handle transactions, workflow, orchestration, threads, protocols, and other inherently 'procedural' concepts. Those mechanisms breed complexity as they try to compensate for the inherent time-invariant deficiency in OO programming. Instead, the problem should be addressed at the root by allowing process-specific constructs, such as 'before/after', 'cause/effect', and, perhaps, 'system state' to be a core part of the language...

quote source: Victoria Livschitz, The Next Move in Programming