It's just a silly observation. I come from a generation that had to create products like AutoCAD to run on CP/M systems with 64K of RAM and precious little permanent storage. As an aside, few people know that software like AutoCAD started on such --by today's standards-- crippled systems.
Anyone who came up in software development through that path has a full understanding of the cost of every bit of code written, every abstraction.
Today's programmers, unless they've taken university courses to expose them to the low level stuff, are extremely isolated from the innards of what they write. They reach for classes and objects by default and seem incapable of thinking outside of these boxes. All of this adds overhead and bloat, something you had to be keenly aware of with limited memory and horsepower.
I do understand that a higher level of abstraction in the context of massive amounts of memory and horsepower can be nice. What gets me is that this is often an unnecessary default.
Going back to state machines. One does not to create a bunch of classes and methods to implement them. I see that almost as a violation of the conceptual simplicity of state machines.
I mean, to go in a different direction, I use state machine in FPGA's all the time. The synthesized hardware works fine and represents the bare minimum necessary to implement these very high speed state machines. No classes involved. One can do the same in software development.