I have said before that I like Uncle Bob's way with words. This includes his Clean Code Discussion:
"When aspects first came out, I was intrigued by the idea. But the more I learned, the less I liked it. The problem is that the pointcuts are tightly coupled to the naming and structure of the code. Simple name changes can break the pointcuts. This, of course, leads to rigidity and fragility. So, nowadays, I don't pay a lot of attention to AOP.
"For my money, the OO techniques that I demonstrated for logging can be pretty easily used for many other cross-cutting concerns. So the tight name-coupling of AOP isn't really necessary."
I too once thought that AOP was a great idea. A carefully crafted AOP solution can even overcome some of the coupling issues that Uncle Bob mentions. But eventually the dependency entanglements even with nice clean injection techniques, pick your poison, you end up with a hodge-podge of rigid and fragile. Eventually you find yourself writing code to serve your AOP solution rather than your use case.
My money is with Bob.