> "We" are replacing layers of stupid shit that got layered on top of, and associated with OOP, with different renderings of the same stupid shit.

Meaning that both structured programming and ADTs are different names for the same "stupid shit", meaning the same ideas as OOP. I agree with this for ADT, that is really just the same thing under another name, but I failed to see how structured programming has something to do with OOP.

I now see, that the paragraph wasn't to be read like that.

---

This:

> All the glop that was added later -- Factories, FactoryFactories, GoF patterns, services, microservices -- that's not OOP as originally proposed. A bunch of often questionable ideas were expressed using OO, but they were not part of OO.

> The OOP hatred has always been bizarre to me, and I think mostly motivated by these false associations. The essential OOP ideas are uncontroversial. They are just programming language constructs designed to support programming practices that are pretty widely recognized as good ones, regardless of your language choices. Pick your language, use the OO parts or not, it isn't that big a deal. And if your language doesn't have OO bits, then good programming often involves reimplementing them in a systematic way.

is really the summary under every explanation or criticism of OOP. It is way more eligible for expression than most blog-posts, but it is so concise that it kind of doesn't even warrant to be that.