Great post!
Yeah I’ve noticed this too. I’ve had an interview for a golang position a few years ago, where they told me that they use kubernetes for fault tolerance and scaling, when they asked me what I used at my job, I just said I don’t have to use anything, the VM was handing all of that for me, they looked at me like I was the last idiot on earth…
I think the concept of what we say is wrong OOP states: encapsulation shakes hand with mutability and side-effects.
What I find more baffling than all of this, is how errors are treated as a separate entities. A typical example:
try {
File myObj = new File("filename.txt");
if (myObj.createNewFile()) {
System.out.println("File created: " + myObj.getName());
} else {
System.out.println("File already exists.");
}
} catch (IOException e) {
System.out.println("An error occurred.");
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
This approach enforces defensive programming, somehow groups multiple parts of code handling together, and introduces a new type of completely different results from the function, not to mention that it reminds me of goto style programming. My only explication for this implementation is either an afterthought or the actual limitation of the type system, because you need to have these polymorphic types that can have different values like Ok, and Error that we use as a convention both in elixir and other languages.
What is strange to me is the fact that haskell was released before languages like java, yes haskell is more focused on academic use, however a lot of concepts that were whacked together as an afterthought were already implemented correctly previously.
So to articulate correctly, namely inherent bad design of features around OOP make the languages complex and hard to learn, not only the actual OOP specific features like inheritance, etc.
but he still seems to wonder what are they good for) seem to underestimate the ability to refactor via a checklist that the compiler is literally handing you, as opposed to crudely searching for certain texts in the codebase and assuming that’s enough – and to be fair to all sides it usually is, which makes the cases where it is not enough all the more dangerous and confusing (some codebases pass modules around and use them dynamically, others use protocols, yet others use 
I absolutely understand the value of types, the only reason I’ve been talking about it so much lately is because this is the first time I’ve felt comfortable talking about it on the internet. Perhaps you were unaware that there are a lot of angry software developers out there 
If you say “I’m ok with dynamic typing because I’ve never really felt any pain” on somewhere like Hacker News, people respond in the extreme to the point that it feels like they’re saying: “Oh, so I guess you also support murdering children, because that’s no worse than not using types.” So I’ve generally stayed out of it.
Okay, fair! Be the kid in the candy store! 
introduce complexity, because they solve a problem that never needed to be solved in the first place if the concept was constrained correctly.