It's worth noting that both languages cited (Python, C++) are multi-paradigm and therefore contain aspects of both OOP and FP; there are very few languages that are exclusively object-oriented or functional. The naming of the functools [0] stdlib package for Python's higher-order functions is illustrative in this respect, and there is an entire HOWTO for "implementing programs in a functional style" [1] in the Python docs.
If you want to see object-orientation taken to the extreme, and how it makes writing programs in a functional style extremely unergonomic, you can read old-school Guava code from Java 6 and try to decipher all the line noise; there is even a caveat in its official documentation [2] that states,
functional programming without Java 8+ requires awkward and verbose use of anonymous classes.
Excessive use of Guava's functional programming idioms can lead to verbose, confusing, unreadable,
and inefficient code. These are by far the most easily (and most commonly) abused parts of Guava,
and when you go to preposterous lengths to make your code "a one-liner," the Guava team weeps.
> It is a case of the paradigm not really meaning anything. It is an arbitrary bunching
This is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater; just because we can't come up with a perfectly precise definition doesn't mean that we should dispense with rough heuristics and (perhaps crudely drawn) boundaries that serve as a useful clustering of related features. Try asking a machine learning or computer vision algorithm for the criteria it uses to categorize something as a "dog;" it's unlikely that you'll come up with something as precise as the definition of the Platonic ideal of a dog, but we can still use its model to recognize dogs with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
[0] https://docs.python.org/3/library/functools.html
[1] https://docs.python.org/3/howto/functional.html#small-functi...
[2] https://github.com/google/guava/wiki/FunctionalExplained
