That’s not what I understood from the post. The discussion about OOP was the main part and the frustrating library was just an example.
The main point, I think, was that it’s easier to understand programs written in a functional way - data and function operating on that data, rather than understanding OOP code - classes holding data and methods, with interactions between different classes. Most python code is OOP based thus authors dislike for Python.
First, I wasn't quite sure what was going on with the discussion about OOP. Smalltalk has classes just like Python does. True, the former allows multiple inheritance, which is not at all required in whatever kind of class you want to design. In fact, like a lot of other OOP or OOP-like languages, you can utilize other schemes to extend the behavior of classes (composite classes, decorators, etc).
But the discussion of libraries (there's a library for everything in Python!) and the particular rant on the poorly documented library gave me ... more pause. Libraries and lots of useful libraries is one of things that makes Python a "batteries included" language choice.
After finishing the article, I realized that the article was all about how frustrating it was trying to use it that library was. And how poor the documentation was. But truthfully, these gripes can be found in any programming language implementation of a ... thing.