Firstly, why are you using Common Lisp to illustrate an article about Functional Programming?
CL is a perfect imperative language, and anything FP-related is quite awkward in it.
Secondly, both paradigms are not about "organising code", and there are far more than just these two, especially if you're talking about organising code in particular.
And, finally, no, OOP does not model the reality in a slightest. There are no hierarchical taxonomies of communicating objects in the real world. OOP is in no way less clumsy and unfit for representing real world problems than FP (which is, as you already mentioned, pretty much equivalent to it).
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Firstly, why are you using Common Lisp to illustrate an article about Functional Programming?
CL is a perfect imperative language, and anything FP-related is quite awkward in it.
Secondly, both paradigms are not about "organising code", and there are far more than just these two, especially if you're talking about organising code in particular.
And, finally, no, OOP does not model the reality in a slightest. There are no hierarchical taxonomies of communicating objects in the real world. OOP is in no way less clumsy and unfit for representing real world problems than FP (which is, as you already mentioned, pretty much equivalent to it).