I did not make any claims about what wirth personally thinks about concepts in general, but if or if not they are part of the original intend of pascal. Let's first start about bit operations, because this is simple. Bit operations where part of Algol, a language Wirth had a lot of influence on. In Pascal later, he did not include bit operations, so assuming that he not suddenly forgot that this concept exists, it is fair to assume that it is a conscious design decision to not include them, therefore they are definitely not a part of Wirths original intend for the language.
About OOP it should be noted that Wirth had a pretty narrow view on OOP
“Procedural programming is still the most common paradigm, and it will remain so, because the semantic gap between procedural languages and computers is smaller than for any other paradigm. Instruction sequences are represented by statements, and the state space by variables.
I consider object-oriented languages also as procedural. They emphasize the grouping of related data into objects, and the attachment of methods to objects. The close relationship between object-oriented and procedural views becomes apparent if we relate the respective terminologies: Basically the terms class, object, and method stand for the classical type, variable, and procedure. Instead of calling a procedure, we now send a message.” -- Wirth
The kind of OOP he is talking about is only a fraction of the OOP paradigm as it is employed today. It is much more than "grouping related data into object and the attachment of methods to objects". Key aspects of OOP include generally, but are not limited to:
- Grouping of data and functionality into objects defined by classes or prototypes
- Classes and prototypes are objects themselves
- Method calls can considered messages that are dispatched according to the object
- Interfaces describe the messages that can be send to the object without specifying any related functionality
- Access rights to allow/deny messages in different context
- Inheritance as a way of extending and specializing objects forming a hierarchical subset relation between classes/prototypes
- Polymorphism through interfaces and inheritance
- Objects can reference semselves
So his comment: "I consider object-oriented languages also as procedural." does not really work when you apply it to the whole picture of OOP, at least as it is implemented in modern day ObjectPascal. Also you can clearly see that his comment “...and in Oberon it was object-orientation in disguise [...]" only works in this very narrow context of OOP, where OOP basically is only the first point on the list.
Thats not to say that there is one version of OOP, different languages embrace different features to varying degrees. Javascript for example is prototype based, while Pascal is Class based, where prototypes are so to say the "base" version of the instanciated object, while classes are a meta object that are linked to the instance.
Some languages also only implement only small parts of OOP, for example in Go there is no inheritance but only interfaces, which is why the Go company, developing the Go language does not consider itself to be an OOP language, but a lightweight OOP language.
Both Modula and Oberon only implement a fraction of the OOP paradigm, and similar to Go do not embrace all the aspects of OOP. So can these languages be called OOP? Sure why not, I don't want to play the arbiter on the meaning of words, but this form of OOP if you want to call it that is undeniable worlds apart from the OOP of modern day Object Pascal.
Oberon is his newest brainchild and, under the assumption that he knows about all the implementations of OOP, he clearly rejected a lot of concepts that are employed in the fully OOP embracing languages like it is ObjectPascal or Java or C++. So while my wording previously might have been a little bit misleading (that it goes explicitly against the original intend), as this only applies to bit operations, it can be said, that Wirth is at least not so fond of these concepts that he left a lot of them out of his newer creations.
That said it is of course impossible to find out if OOP would have been part of his original intend, as back then OOP did not exist, and even if you would ask him today, people change their opinions over time, so this question can never be answered, and it was bad by me to bring it up.
But I stick to what I wrote, I not care what was his original intend, because times change, people change and technology changes. Some concepts simply did not exist back when Pascal was first concieved, and some things might have been around but technically not possible at that time and other concepts can have been refined over time to better suite different situations. A feature must stand and fall on it's own merits only with respect to it's direct influence on the matter. Calling to the "original intend" is basically delegating the explanation to an external authority, if someone tells me a feature is good or bad, I want reasons for this that are about the feature itself, what someone else from 50 years ago thinks about the feature should not have any bearing on the feature itself. If you invoke this to judge a feature, this is just a cop out. The judgement should be done on good reasoning, not on invoking an authority.