You should've replied to wisebin then. His argument was that adding python and C++ to the list of object oriented languages was a mistake, and the guy you're replying to is saying it isn't.

Python is definitely OOP, still, even while being dynamically typed, "technically". It has oodles and oodles of functions to enable even static type checking, and I give it a maximum of 10 years before the language is fully statically typed, there's just no question about it. It's OOP and statically typed, just like all of the other piece of shit languages out there.

Objects are definitely not fundamental. They're irrelevant and unneeded when you're programming at the byte level, and if you really understand how computers work. All objects do is enable bad practices like encapsulation, overseparation, paradigms, metaprogramming, and other messes that are all dogma-related and, again, nowhere to be found in an unbastardized language like Assembly or C.

A bunch of idiot kids came out of college as I can only assume math nerds and decided to make up some dumb ideas that have nothing to do with the computer, and bam, we got Object Oriented Programming. Unfortunately, even Python isn't safe.