get and set methods are evil.

There is some truth to this. I am not familiar with the article so I don't know Holub's perspective. (Update: I have read articles by Holub in the same vein.)

The idea that an attribute should be indistinguishable, at the interface level, from equivalent fetch and set methods is extremely convenient in a language.

class SAMPLE is
    data:INT is return something; end;
    data( param:SOMETYPE) is do_something( param) end;
end
[download]

is the same as

class SAMPLE is
    attr data:INT;
end
[download]

To not use set and fetch methods is problematic in languages that do not have this feature when the interface of a class may change. Many languages require invasion of clients to change an attribute to a method. Programmers choose methods in defence against change.

I suspect that Holub's complaint is that a lot of fetch and set methods are either being added thoughtlessly or show a poor object design abstraction. In some languages preserving a flexible interface is a strong counter-argument to the former. I agree with the latter but know there are exceptions, e.g. users wanting to "emulate" a paper trail.