Just want to clarify that I don't think we necessarily have that different view on things. You just use different labels. I think we both reckognize the benefits of systems which are based on communication whether the internet itself or microservices.

My previous reply however did not answer your question: "Why judge Java by the definitions used in Smalltalk and Simula?"

I get what you are trying to say although there are still confusions there. Alan Kay OOP isn't a language per say. And Smalltalk was just one of his attempt at creating an OO system. By his own admission he doesn't think it got there all the way. It is merely closer to the vision than Java got. Simula is not OOP in the Kay sense. Simula is OOP in the way Java is OO. You could say Java is an attempt at a Simula like language, while Smalltalk was an attempt at an OO language.

Anyway this is beside the point. I could rephrase your system to ask "Why should Java be judged by how close it is to Alan Kay's vision for OO, and not judged on its own merits?"

To that I will say: I could not agree more! The reason I keep writing about this is because Java guys keep judging Go by how close it is to Java style OOP. As if Java style OOP is some inherent quality onto itself. It is just one way of building systems, and James Gosling himself doesn't even think it was a good idea. He prefers the Go approach.

All I want is for the Java crowd to stop complaining that some other competing language isn't OOP enough. This is such an annoying focus over in the Java camp, which I have heard for something like 20 years now.

You don't need classes and class inheritance to build large systems. I do believe the ideas of Alan Kay makes sense at a macro level. But at lower levels I greately prefer a more functional approach, and Java is not a good fit for that. I think Java overdid it with its class based design, making it too hard to write and use free functions.