I have a huge problem with this, because what should be obvious is, the number of people who can be in management/architecture roles is necessarily much smaller than the number of people who are in basic development roles. Assuming the majority of aging programmers don't die of unnatural causes, the only way all of them continue to be employed is if the total size of the software industry is growing at a significant rate (as it has been for the last few decades) but there's really no guarantee this will continue forever and not only that, basic math tells us there is no way this can continue forever. I am starting to think that similar to models and athletes, whose careers start fizzling out in their 30s and 40s, our careers start fizzling out in our 40s and 50s.
Models and athletes can't do their jobs anymore as they age; modelling is all about the beauty of youth and most sports with pro atheletes do a lot of physical damage that adds up over time.
Our jobs aren't like that at all. We may not be able to handle 48-hr caffeine-fueled marathons anymore, but our experience tells us that those are a bad idea anyway, and we wouldn't do them even if we could. That experience is valuable, giving us insight and true productivity, and lets face it the job is sitting at a desk... we can do that well past retirement age, since we'll be doing a lot of sitting around anyway.
While I personally think the above post is morally repugnant, I was very disappointed to see that it had been downvoted significantly and I upvoted it to try to balance it out. The poster might be wrong but he did so with a civil tone and an actual attempt to include citations. I question his basic premises but this is exactly the sort of thing that free speech should protect. He may be wrong and you can ignore it but you shouldn't be allowed to shut him up.
I don't think the quote was meant to be taken literally. You are missing the point if you are.
It should be obvious by now that OOP is a programming method that is possible in any programming language, and it is easier in some and harder in others. There is no language that exists where you can't force out non-OOP code, and you can always build your own OOP framework, even in C or assembly.
A more productive use of the quote would be to compare the design of small talk and lisp vs say java and c++, and think about why someone as brilliant as Alan Kay should consider that it is not easy to write OOP code in java or c++.
On what basis do you make the claim that you are the #1 rated mattress? I see that you have mattresses that are 5 star rated, but that does not imply you are the best one. According to Amazon's "Top Rated" mattresses, your brand is not even in the top 10. [http://www.amazon.com/gp/top-rated/home-garden/3732961/]
Since you bring up Fowler, in his book Refactoring he gives specific examples to show why you should AVOID comments. In most situations you should try to write code that is so clear no comments are needed. That's what the above code is really about.
I agree with everything that you said however consider the possibility of every residential building being bought out and replaced with a server farm along the locations where googfib is first being laid out. I think we can understand why google doesn't really want that right now?