Depends on how old you are perhaps?

I remember being told that my way would work but wasn't OO enough, and because of that it was wrong i.e. I hadn't done well on that portion of the interview.

The older you are, the more likely it is that you were presented to other ideas before - and that can help you contextualize object orientation. I learned OOP in the late 80's with Smalltalk/V, used Actor (an Algol-ish ST-workalike), but the first computer I ever programmed was a Sinclair ZX-81 clone (http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=910&s...), quickly moving on to an Apple II clone (http://www.homecomputer.de/pages/f_info.html?cce_Exato_Pro.h...).

So, before my first contact with OO, I learned BASIC, 6502 assembly, FORTRAN, GraFORTH, C (on QNX!), some Pascal (Turbo on CP/M), a little bit of Lisp (and I ran away from it). Dijkstra would consider me hopeless.

Would be interesting to know what non-OO means precisely. I am reading SICP right now and a bit confused: functional programming is not newer, nor more powerful. It just easier to debug. (It seems)

I once saw a "Library" class with lots of public static methods. That's as non-OO as it gets when you are writing Java code.

The worst part about it is that it actually made sense. You don't want your Order class to worry about localizing dates and you don't want to clutter your glue code with Java's cruel date/time system either. You also don't want to make yet another subclass of a date/time and glue it to your ORM.