In fact, I did. But I think it is wrong to judge OOP based on crude implementations. That is the reason why I added the Trabant example:

> The Trabant was loud, slow, poorly designed, badly built, inhospitable to drive, uncomfortable, confusing and inconvenient. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant)

Java and C++ are both great tools for specific jobs, but from an OOP perspective, they are badly designed. So if you want to discuss OOP as a design choice, it would be unreasonable to discuss it based on those poor implementations. Smalltalk, on the other hand, has its own set of problems, but a poor OOP implementation is not part of it.

Ah, I see what you mean. I do think it's valuable/reasonable to discuss OOP as it is 'in the wild', but I can also see how it's a bit of a dead horse to beat, and discussing what could be (or didn't become the mainstream) is at least more interesting.