I've seen that quote in a number of threads criticizing OO, and I don't think I fully understand it. Could someone explain what the practical edge of his argum

I've seen that quote in a number of threads criticizing OO, and I don't think I fully understand it. Could someone explain what the practical edge of his argument is here? Or is it just a theoreticians complaint, taking a (perhaps simplistic) definition of OO and declaring it unsuitable? Everyone agrees in theory that proofs and generic code are great, but in practice it seems that most programs (at least, the ones that I've seen) aren't conglomerations of mathematically reasonable abstractions, but fairly monomorphic domain-specific actions that would benefit more from what OO offers than from proofs and generic regular types.