I disagree with every point he made. Data structures shall be bound to functions. It increases modularity. That does not mean common code shall not be refactor

I disagree with every point he made. Data structures shall be bound to functions. It increases modularity. That does not mean common code shall not be refactored and be standalone. Data types are instantiated to objects. When in Erlang a time variable is declared, that variable is an object. OOP has data types too, called classes, and having everything to be an object does not mean it has to be the same data type. In some languages classes can be in the same file, so point #3 is actually about specific implementations. Inside point #3 he also mentions inheritance. Not all OOP languages require inheritance from a specific class. I also disagree with his 4th point about hidden state: hidden state enhances modularization tremendously. I don't need to see how something is implemented, treating it as a black box increases my chances of using it correctly through a predefined interface. If the interface is lacking or is not defined correctly, that's an entirely different problem and it's not due to hidden state.