This article is Not Even Wrong. It's not close enough to even being wrong to warrant a thought through response. The author needs to go and learn how to do OO properly before making wild declarations about "Why OO sucks".
================
Edit: worth clarifying this as I've just realised that this guy is supposed to be the author of a programming language (quite worrying if he is!)
As I said, this is too far from even being wrong to be worth really debating point by point, so I'll just poke a few holes to demonstrate that I'm not just flaming:
1) functions and data structures belong in totally different worlds
Anyone who's even glanced at SICP knows that the distinction between data and functions are vague at best. Certainly they are tightly coupled concepts.
------------
2) Functions are understood as black boxes that transform inputs to outputs. If I understand the input and the output then I have understood the function. This does not mean to say that I could have written the function.
How does that have anything to do with the age of the captain? Not only the author's main point doesn't make sense, but he feels the latitude to make tangents about unrelated things that don't really have an impact on his obviously controversial main point.
--------------
3) The "time" example that he gives...
In this example, he basically creates an ad-hoc object made of methods that return data. The only difference between this and proper OO is that this structure doesn't benefit from all the advantages of OO. But it's still a tightly coupled structure made of data (the values) and functions (the methods to access those values).
--------------
4) In an OOPL data type definitions belong to objects. So I can't find all the data type definition in one place. In Erlang or C I can define all my data types in a single include file or data dictionary.
So now language design should be driven by whether you have a decent editor that allows you to manage more than 1 file? Seriously, the "Everything in 1 file" anti-pattern is not even worth arguing about... When someone makes such a dumb point, how can you take the rest of the article seriously?
--------------
I could go on, but I think I'm proven my point. Either this article was not written by Joe Armstrong, or it casts severe doubt on the sanity of Erlang, or he's written it to troll the OO community.