alt Hacker NewsI think this is looking at what OOP has become (as implemented by systems and programming languages that don't care a wit about what OO was meant to be) rather than what Alan Kay described.
If you think about something like a web server as an object, it has arbitrarily high cohesion and arbitrarily low coupling. You can only communicate to it through messages (HTTP); binding happens at the point in time that the message arrives (notwithstanding that this may be cached in all sorts of interesting ways in the implementation of any given server); and the web server is fully encapsulated (security flaws notwithstanding).
I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that much of what gets called OOP doesn't deliver on the promise, but then it doesn't deliver on the premise either, and I think these are inextricably linked.
The Alan Kay variant of OOP is superior in this regard, and I'd argue the Erlang variant even more so (Actors are just asynchronous objects).
But both of them are still suboptimal because they allow objects to instantiate one another and to directly communicate with whomever they come in contact with. That creates strong coupling and you have to "fight the paradigm" to avoid it.
Other engineering domains have this figured out: components can only send and receive data through ports, they are never aware of their siblings. Only a component at a higher level of abstraction can decide how the ports of lower level components connect to one another. That completely eliminates coupling.
(You can of course replicate this type of architecture with OOP, but you can also replicate it with any turing complete paradigm, that's neither here nor there)