So have procedural and functional systems. What is your point? There's no practical evidence that those projects were successful because of OOP, and there's no theoretical basis for believing it either. In the meantime, object-oriented programming languages require one to make some pretty uncomfortable tradeoffs (for example, it makes type inference undecidable and practically requires virtual dispatch), so even if they are just a noop, we should still avoid it whenever possible.
My point, which I felt i made clearly, is that the OP overstated the discrediting of object oriented programming. I'm not sure what you are replying to, but not a single sentence in your post addresses that at all, so I'm not going to bother to address any of your points. They are all tangential.
Then your assertion was also tangential, as whether or not people have been successful at producing complicated software with OOP has very little to do with whether or not it has been discredited. People have been very successful at producing complex software that uses goto, but goto has been discredited. This is not because people thought that goto made it impossible to produce complex software, but because people thought that goto did not promote local reasoning well, which is similar to my objections to OOP.
Either way, my point was that there are many other paradigms that have been equally successful; that suggests that we should be looking at its other objective downsides in determining whether or not to add it to a programming language, rather than simply assume that it should be there.
