Not finding any use for this type of programming.

Is there a specific example/exercise to which you're referring? I'd be glad to take a stab at justifying (or agreeing with you) if you point me to what you're referencing.

It's building the quiz challenge using object oriented coding. They have constructor functions, prototypes, object literals, But in my opinion it makes more sense to just build this code with a few variables, an array, and a function or 2. When he goes through his solution it's a lot of lines of code for no other reason then building it with objects.

I took a look at the Object Oriented in JS material and got to the quiz--yes, I think it's fair to say some of the solutions were purposely exploring various features like storing methods in an object's prototype, and breaking things up into separate files. I think you can make an argument for each solution--it wasn't just to make it more complicated. Perhaps you wouldn't take full advantage of some of the groundwork until the project grows to much more complex. But notice how the app.js file simply used the API designed in his other quizUI class.

If you can build the same thing with just variables and functions then that's cool. You might want to challenge yourself to do so. I will say that sometimes trying to do the minimum possible can come back and bite you later when the app grows. If you list as a requirement for the code "needs to be sustainable as complexity increases or the project changes" then often that means a more complex foundation. There's always an easier way to solve something--perhaps even more elegant. I could definitely make an argument against OOP in general but that doesn't really help when you're trying to learn the benefits of OOP.

Anyway, it's definitely a difficult balance to solve--that is, between over engineering, simplicity, and making it solve the requirements at hand.

I really appreciate your response, It gave me a different perspective on OOP. In my perception I was thinking I had to throw everything I was learning to implement this new syntax and now I see it's more of a mix, Use when necessary.