I think the author also gets it wrong on the FP side, as he forgets the impure ones, like ML and Lispy ones, where side-effects are accepted. That is not in co

I think the author also gets it wrong on the FP side, as he forgets the impure ones, like ML and Lispy ones, where side-effects are accepted. That is not in conflict with his argument. He does not argue that object-oriented programming or functional programming are wrong, just that taking a paradigm to an extreme (e.g. pure functional programming) is bad. He is implicitly arguing for ML and Lisp and against Haskell, since e.g. ML is a functional language that recognizes that the world is mutable by allowing mutable data structures. (Not that I agree - one could argue that Haskell acknowledges impurity even more by making it part of the type system.)