You can but it's not common. It's like saying you can write functional programing in C. You can but the whole ecosystem is not doing it.
If you set attributes, you know for sure that they changed at this particular place in the program but later in another position in the program, can you reason about the value of the object? You don't even who mutated it. And don't tell me "you can get its state", I'm talking about reasoning about the program here.
There is a reason why concurrent programming is more difficult than necessary with objects.
My point is that this implicit management of the state in "OOP" brings a lot of problems
If I were to design an idiot-proof OOP model that takes this into account, I'd force sequential processing of mutating methods - if the running method starts a mutation and there is another method doing the same, we roll it back until the previous method finishes.
Performance would suck, but that's life. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can but it's not common. It's like saying you can write functional programing in C. You can but the whole ecosystem is not doing it.
If you set attributes, you know for sure that they changed at this particular place in the program but later in another position in the program, can you reason about the value of the object? You don't even who mutated it. And don't tell me "you can get its state", I'm talking about reasoning about the program here.
There is a reason why concurrent programming is more difficult than necessary with objects.
My point is that this implicit management of the state in "OOP" brings a lot of problems