I can’t bring myself to the same conclusions. All your reasons are true, and I’ve seen the same problems where Java/.Net/etc. developers are being compelled, against their desires, to use JavaScript. But to me, justifying bad practices (and Classical OOP in JS is a bad practice) to make JS more palatable in the short term to people who don’t want to be there in the first place is not the right solution, and will only lead to bigger problems latter down the road where it is much more difficult to solve.

What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if a talented and knowledgeable JavaScript developer were compelled to work in a language that favored a fundamentally different paradigm, but could be made to superficially appear like the paradigm s/he were used to? Should the language authors provide syntactic sugar to make the language more appealing to that group of developers — who again, would rather not be in that language to begin with? If they did, should the community embrace and advocate for that sugar, perhaps knowing that by so doing, they are creating a whole class of developers who will never learn the language paradigms and patterns for which the language excels and create applications the one day they will likely need to maintain. I just can’t arrive there.

To me, the answer is to hire or transition developers to JavaScript who want to be there. Restaff if that’s what it takes. Sure, it will be a rocky path, and sure, there will be times — especially in the beginning — where developers will have to work in a language they don’t know sufficiently and don’t care to learn, but we can’t make that situation a comfortable one, because that is where it will end.