How can it be revisionism when it's taken from Bjarne Stroustrup's 1988 paper 'What is object-oriented programming?', page 13.

6:03 -- "And what he [Marc LeBlanc] said was for some reason OOP has gotten into this mindset of compile-time hierarchies that match the domain model. …"

6:29 -- "And what he [Marc LeBlanc] is saying is like why are we pushing this? Why is that the idea, right? …"

And Stroustrup's starting-point is abstract-data-types not a compile-time-hierarchy —

"Consider defining a type 'shape' for use in a graphics system. Assume for the moment that the system has to support circles, triangles, and squares. Assume also that you have some classes … You might define a shape like this … This is a mess."

And Stroustrup then says what he's pushing and why and when —

"The problem is that there is no distinction between the general properties of any shape … and the properties of a specific shape … The ability to express this distinction and take advantage of it defines object-oriented programming. …

The programming paradigm is: Decide which classes you want; provide a full set of operations for each class; make commonlity explicit by using inheritance. …

Where there is no such commonality, data abstraction suffices."