Kent Beck, Martin Fowler come to mind. Sure Alan Kay thinks the same too.

Though I don't really understand the question. Whether OO is good or not is a different question, and I'd posit the more important one.

>Kent Beck, Martin Fowler come to mind. Sure Alan Kay thinks the same too.

Alan Kay? Alan Kay has had the worst to say about OOP as its known ("but there's a different good paradigm, which real-world OOP devs in C++/Java/etc might not use, but Alan Kay had in mind and Smalltalk offers" is not really a rebuttal").

>Though I don't really understand the question. Whether OO is good or not is a different question, and I'd posit the more important one.

And we can't divine the answer to that question.

But we can see what the luminaries have to say about it.

I'd rather follow the good examples/advice (of those that did major practical work in CS) that take some "objective" (how?) answer to the matter as gospel.

Bertrand Meyer, creator of Eiffel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Meyer.

Plenty of books to read from, but I guess many don't remeber that thing exists, just read a couple of Medium blog posts as learning process.

Medium blog posts are mostly trash. They all seem like they are written by junior developers.

Not sure what is meant here.

That there are plenty of books teaching OO programming?

Sure.

Is there any major CS figure / language developer etc that thinks OO is a good idea in 2021 was the question.

Not whether some O'Reilly or Manning or whatever author has some book about it...

I don't know, Anders Hejlsberg, Yukihiro Matsumoto, Guido van Rossum, Brian Goetz, Mads Torgersen come to mind.

And even the cool kids that got two releases yesterday, Rust and Julia, do support OOP, so I guess we can include their core design teams as well.

Well, I'll give you Guido and Matz, which started their languages in early 90s when OO was all the rage and stuck with it.

Anders, Goetz, and Torgensen on recent years have all talked about the need to add functional features into the languages that started as OOP (and is what they have been doing with C#, TypeScript, and Java since 1.6 or so). One also suspects they made them OOP because they did them on comission and the goal (of Sun, MS, etc.) was to attract devs with what was considered hot at the time...

But neither Rust nor Julia support inheritance, so if their style can even be called OOP, it's not the OOP of the kind that Joe talked about where you "get a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle", and which most devs know from C++, Java, and yes, Python and Ruby.

Inheritance is not a must have in OOP, as plenty of SIGPLAN and ECOOPs conference procedings report.

So yes their style can in certain cases be called OOP.

Just like being a multi-paradigm language, with support for OOP, doesn't magically make it non-OOP.