The article presents OOP and FP as mutually exclusive paradigms where one must be entirely wrong. In reality, modern software development benefits from hybrid approaches. Most current languages support both paradigms, and experienced engineers choose appropriate tools for specific problems.
The interview question about static constructors and self-instantiating programs represents anti-patterns that professional OOP developers also avoid, not inherent OOP features. This is equivalent to judging FP by its worst callback-hell examples.
The ad hominem attack on prominent OOP authors doesn't improve the quality of the article, and dismissing patterns as "crutches" ignores that FP has equivalent patterns (monads, functors, lenses).