For instance, he seems to conflate "module" and "object" to the point that any language with "modules" is also an object-oriented language, which is odd, since

For instance, he seems to conflate "module" and "object" to the point that any language with "modules" is also an object-oriented language, which is odd, since that would make Haskell and Erland [sic] object-oriented. I cannot weigh in with regards to Haskell, but in the case of Erlang this actually isn't all that odd. The actor model is to a large extent an object system for modelling concurrency - this being per Alan Kay's definition of OO as isolated units that communicate via message passing, as opposed to the more common definition of polymorphism/encapsulation/inheritance, which in practice is usually a quasi-procedural sugar coating. Admittedly this does neglect some of the more detailed Smalltalk properties like class objects holding shared state, but the terminology behind OO is murky and Erlang exhibiting elements of it can nonetheless be argued.