This was a long read (26 minutes according to estimates by Medium) I'm not much of a programmer. Luckily this article/analysis doesn't require you to become one. There are many real world examples brought up:
OOP is not natural for the human brain, our thought process is centered around “doing” things — go for a walk, talk to a friend, eat pizza. Our brains have evolved to do things, not to organize the world into complex hierarchies of abstract objects.
OOP code is non-deterministic — unlike with functional programming, we’re not guaranteed to get the same output given the same inputs. This makes reasoning about the program very hard. As an oversimplified example, the output of 2+2 or calculator.Add(2, 2) mostly is equal to four, but sometimes it might become equal to three, five, and maybe even 1004. The dependencies of the Calculator object might change the result of the computation in subtle, but profound ways. OOPs…
The author is very much into Functional Programming ad I'm not educated enough to compare that with Object Oriented Programming. But it was a great read. Give it a try and you might learn a few interesting things. Even if you never become a programmer, you are likely to interact with them. It will help your interactions/collaborations if you know a little bit about the other person's work.