It's called "Learning from the Object Oriented Mania", but what did we learn exactly? Would the industry be in a better place if all languages looked a lot more like C? Or maybe Haskell? Does Rust count as OOP or not? Was Object Oriented an unjustified trend, or was it a "natural" evolution of languages?
That last question is actually similar to the mask question: was it indeed stupid to ask people to wear masks, or did it make sense at the time, given our understanding at the time? But the article misses on this opportunity by just bashing at the masks without going any further.
> What are your views on OOP?
My view (which I wouldn't consider informed enough to be a blog post) is that modern languages like Rust mostly drops class inheritance, but other than that they look a lot more like Java/C++ than C. And that's the new "trend": dropping class inheritance, "Composition over inheritance". Which is a fair point: class inheritance can have issues. In some cases it actually does make sense, but languages like Rust decide not to allow it (I guess partly to avoid "footguns" and partly for performance reasons).
But the idea of encapsulation in an object is there in the most popular modern languages. If the concept of calling `my_list.is_empty()` instead of `is_empty(my_list)` is "OOP", then I think it is actually still very much in fashion and for good reasons.