Taking "anti-OO" to mean languages that specifically don't have OO capabilities (rather than languages where you can choose not to use OO). Any of the large C code bases?
The Linux kernel is huge, yes, and is written in a "pre-OO" language. It's also full of OO paradigms.
For example, the core kernel developers don't want to have to write huge "switch" statements to handle the thousands of different drivers written by tens of thousands of third-party developers.
What do you expect to see at this API boundary? Perhaps.. and OO API with vtables and everything?
Yup: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.11/driver-api/infrastruct...
Function pointers in structs as far as the eye can see...
Fair point. Though with the explicitness that's required to do this in C (you have to pass the actual struct pointer that would normally be the receiver, along with a general lack of inheritance) results in code that's much easier to understand than the patterns that the traditional OO languages have created for themselves. I suppose that's less of a criticism of OO itself and more of a criticism of the people who build languages that emphasize OO, and the general ecosystems that crop up around them.
> written in a "pre-OO" language
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the "OO languages" go all the way back to Simula67, which predates C. Though at that point OO was still in its "academic" phase the way functional programming is today.
Agreed with the point, though.