Is DDD the "Final Form" of OOP, or a necessary abstraction to save us from it?

The following is difficult to document, but in conferences, podcasts, social media, etc. I've heard more than once that Eric Evans acknowledges that the choice of OOP for Domain-Driven Design was mostly an artefact of the time in which the book was written. Consider that the publication year is 2003. At that time, the only realistic options were OOP and procedural programming, and the whole point of the book was to raise the abstraction level. At that time, everyone looked to OOD as the paradigm that would fulfil that dream.

As this question implies, it did not, and Evans has also repeatedly stated that the main point of the book wasn't OOD, but rather the notion of using domain terminology when creating abstractions. Whether you do that in OOD, Functional Programming (FP), or something else entirely, is secondary.

Some people, including Scott Wlaschin, Evans himself, and myself, have found that FP is often a better fit for DDD. It addresses many of the concerns in the above question, in a way much more congruent with FP philosophy than with OOD. Scott's book Domain Modeling Made Functional is a good place to start.

Omg, will this ever end? Majority (99,999) can't formally explain how to put a shoe on a foot. Can't write formal logic of simpliest things. Explain how MAD-world server ran in 1990, on a 50MHz processor with thousands users and ten thousands mobs and items. And all of this interacted with each other without limitations or errors.