I was mostly riffing on the time Joe Armstrong, creator of Erlang, said that Erlang might be the only object-oriented language in existence. Although he's not exactly wrong, is he?

> I thought it was functional.

I think that is reasonable. Objects, describing encapsulation of data, are what define functional. Without encapsulation, you merely have procedural. Of course, that still does not imply the objects are oriented...

For that you need message passing. But Erlang has message passing too! So there is a good case to be made that is object-oriented.