I get what the programmer is trying to say but I think the problem is when you think everything is a nail because all you have is a OOP hammer. OOP lets you wire things up in a very unnatural memory hungry way kinda way.
When you start dealing with 500,000 files in one directory and you try to do a files->getname(10)->size->to_string(). You are bound to run out of physical memory. This is probably why newer operating systems are so slow. Caching will only save you for so long.
I don't actually really like the concept of the OOP as it is understood today. I mean it more in the Self / Smalltalk sense, which is quite different and thanks to late binding more similar to lisp.
Also your example is weird and you won't run out of memory if you use generators.
Generators are OOP service packs. It feels like the intention is to make things simple and easy to mesh together at the cost of overall flexibility. This would make a case for a new operating system built around this idea.
Well, its just criticism. I am working on my own programming language (http://blog.rfox.eu/en/tinySelf.html) which could be probably used for experiments on this field of work, but mostly I am focused on creating personal wiki systems these days.
interesting and confusing language. if we really want to get new break throughs we will eventually have to tackle the root cause of issues and re-write the OS or we will be patching languages forever. For example; image every variable would be data + meta? It would take up twice the space but allow for stranger types.
When you start dealing with 500,000 files in one directory and you try to do a files->getname(10)->size->to_string(). You are bound to run out of physical memory. This is probably why newer operating systems are so slow. Caching will only save you for so long.