Object Orientation (and other poorly understood idioms)

I see this statement frequently, and it's almost always said by people who don't identify as computer scientists. I have a Bachelor's and Master's in computer science, am about a year away from a PhD in it, and I'm still not comfortable defining where exactly my field stands in regards to others. The best I can come up with is that it's a combination of math, science and engineering related to computation (the idea) and computers (the implementation).

The point he's trying to make with this statement - programs should be viewed as a natural expression of a solution, not a to-do list for a computer - is valid. But he ignores that while computer languages can be put in the same hierarchy as natural languages, they have properties that allow us to use math to prove or guarantee conditions.

I didn't get the whole thing about "don't create garbage objects" either. Not all state is persistent, programs have transient state as they go about their business. The transient state gets collected, and the space that it used can be reused for more transient state. That isn't wasteful or inefficient, it's a fact of life. (I think he's getting at reusing objects, which is a task for the compiler and GC, not for the programmer. The fact that Forth exposes that just means that Forth is a very low-level language, nothing more.)

Anyway, I could nitpick his other points, but they just don't make any sense, and I don't really care.