You are projecting those assumptions on the original poster, and to some extent the smart folks that pondered the cell analogy in the first place.
Neither argue that FP can't be built modularly with a wonderful structured API. OOP, conceptually, is simply one way to accomplish that goal. FP is another.
In both cases, the underlying philosophies are sound, it is the humans that implement the solutions that fall well short of the mark.
He opened up the response with an analogy about cells.
For an analogy to have any use at all, it must illustrate a contrast between two relevant ideas.
The article is entitled "Why OO Sucks" and written by the author of Erlang.
I "projected" that the comment to which I replied was defending the non-suckiness of OO by using the cell analogy to contrast with erlang. Are you saying that was a leap?
What you are saying makes sense: there is more than one useful model. But that point should be made in the context of Joe Armstrong's specific criticisms; not claiming that OOP is as modular as a cell and erlang is not.
Neither argue that FP can't be built modularly with a wonderful structured API. OOP, conceptually, is simply one way to accomplish that goal. FP is another.
In both cases, the underlying philosophies are sound, it is the humans that implement the solutions that fall well short of the mark.