Polymorphism and encapsulation are not features exclusive to OOP.
Isomorphisms exist everywhere. You could say nothing is OOP because it compiles into assembly anyway where pretty much all those concepts don't even exist. You can even say all of assembly can decompile into OOP so everything is OOP.
Think about it. If linus torvolds hates OOP. What is it that he hates? You can say, Linus is an idiot and everything is OOP so he's wrong.
Or you can understand what is it about OOP that he hates and understand the delta between my examples and what is traditionally thought of as OOP.
None* of my examples contain a class. That should be a hint, as that syntax is pretty much used in most OOP languages.
*React still contains class based components except the creators now recommend moving away from class based syntax to functional components.
Comments
I think all of your examples allow encapsulation of data behind polymorphic interfaces. So, not data oriented. This includes the Linux kernel [1]
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Ealdrich/papers/objects-essay.pdf
Polymorphism and encapsulation are not features exclusive to OOP.
Isomorphisms exist everywhere. You could say nothing is OOP because it compiles into assembly anyway where pretty much all those concepts don't even exist. You can even say all of assembly can decompile into OOP so everything is OOP.
Think about it. If linus torvolds hates OOP. What is it that he hates? You can say, Linus is an idiot and everything is OOP so he's wrong.
Or you can understand what is it about OOP that he hates and understand the delta between my examples and what is traditionally thought of as OOP.
None* of my examples contain a class. That should be a hint, as that syntax is pretty much used in most OOP languages.
*React still contains class based components except the creators now recommend moving away from class based syntax to functional components.