That's a good paper
that arrives at the wrong conclusions.
When he says OOP, he means the pseudo OOP embodied in Java, C++, C#, you know - static pretend OOP.
At least part of this conclusion stems from the idea that these OOP wannabes somehow captured the OOPness of their more dynamic predecessors. He definitely hit the nail on the head when he asserts that
1) We have been lied to by the methodologists and academics about how to build systems
2) Programming languages have devolved in an undesireable direction largely due to FUD.
3) This has not been good for the state of the art.
But we've all been rehashing this here forever - it sucks to be enlightened in the modern development world - nobody cares and you just get shunned as a heretic when you speak what you know (knowledge gained - at least in my case - from trying to do things the "correct" way, taking my lumps when things failed, and careful analysis of the causes of failure).
The paper would be better titled - static languages have failed. And in many ways they have and continue to do so every day.
"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination
of their C programs."
-- Robert Firth
