The argument being made is basically: "OOP is easy because it is easy".
I happen to find many aspects of OOP quite unintuitive for almost every class of problem I've ever tackled, beyond the classic academic examples (colors, animals, elevators, etc.). I'm almost always more focused on what my program is "doing" (functions) rather than what my program is "being" (objects).
So, because the author provided no evidence beyond his opinion, I'm going to effectively refute the premise with this devastating blow:
Object Oriented Programming is harder than Functional Programming.
Your second problem, embodied in the superficial dismissal you made of the first comment on your post, is that you understand neither OO nor FP. You really need to read Cardelli and Wadler before bloviating further on this topic.
You third problem is that you're submitting your own blog post. Noone is a good judge of their own work -- If it was really worthy of consideration, someone else would submit it independently.
FP is actually more widespread than OOP, so much so that we don't even notice it (or call it FP) any more. If a language has functions, then it is somewhat functional.
The argument being made is basically: "OOP is easy because it is easy".
I happen to find many aspects of OOP quite unintuitive for almost every class of problem I've ever tackled, beyond the classic academic examples (colors, animals, elevators, etc.). I'm almost always more focused on what my program is "doing" (functions) rather than what my program is "being" (objects).
So, because the author provided no evidence beyond his opinion, I'm going to effectively refute the premise with this devastating blow:
Object Oriented Programming is harder than Functional Programming.