What people are complaining about when they voice these sorts of concerns goes back to the concept of essential vs accidental complexity proposed by Fred Brooks. The issue is not that adding accidental, inessential complexity to software is somehow a sin. The problem is that someone will have to wrangle this extra complexity. Enterprises can just throw bodies at the problem, creating drudgery. The warning is against producing pointless, boring work.

All of those languages also have functional/procedural language features. You don't have to go crazy with Classes/Objects to program in them.

Which is what’s great about these languages - best of both worlds.

I also think this discussion shouldn’t be about languages at all, you can have objects of some form in any imperative language including C. It’s more about what design patterns make sense for specific problems, and sometimes the answer is OO-style (eg with class hierarchies) and sometimes not.

(nobody is talking about whether X pattern can be used successfully)