That was not the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to make it that the need for encapsulation and abstraction does not go away, and that people will

That was not the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to make it that the need for encapsulation and abstraction does not go away, and that people will re-invent them if they are taken away. More specifically, I think structs, or something like structs, are inevitable. And methods are also inevitable. Whether it be by OOP-style classes that contain both fields and methods, or in the Julia style where you have structs, and global-scoped functions with struct-specific methods, or in the Rust style you linked to with structs that conforms to a trait, which implements the method is not important for my specific point. All three ways add complexity to the language, but such kind of complexity is unavoidable, because it will show up in the code anyway. Even if you use C, which does not have an explicit connection between structs and functions (i.e. methods), you will just write functions where you document that such and such argument should be a pointer to such and such type.