I think to the extent that that a program needs interactivity whether via network, or some form of user interface, it is pretty normal to see something at least

I think to the extent that that a program needs interactivity whether via network, or some form of user interface, it is pretty normal to see something at least vaugely OOPish if you squint right in the overall program structure. This can be (among others): an actor system, an effect system, a struct full of function pointers approach, or native OOP support. I also don't think you are wrong that Smalltalk tends to be more functional than many other languages that call themselves "object oriented", which tend to emphasize a more procedural and imperative style (e.g. use of for loops instead of functions like map) of programming functions/methods. And your big picture OO-ish, small scale functional observation does sound about right, at least for languages that are more functionally aligned. Erlang uses its actor pattern mostly for the large scale organization, with details generally being pretty normal functional code. Even in procedural languages there is a growing tendency to add features to make functional style programming easier, and growing recognition that immutable data is easier to reason about, etc.