[bad_user]

OOP is primarily about polymorphism (subtyping) and encapsulation, code reuse by means of inheritance is just a nice to have, so that comparison doesn't make sense.

You can compare OOP with parametric polymorphism, you can compare it with type-classes. Heck, OOP isn't necessarily about subtyping and we could be talking about row polymorphism (e.g. OCaml) which has some really nice properties.

> This provides a multiple inheritance equivalent without all the complications on C++ and that most OO oriented languages forbid because of that complication.

Except that it doesn't solve the fundamental problems with OOP, because it's still essentially OOP with subtyping ... and lots of marketing. So coming from Go you can be excused for thinking that the last 30 years of research have been for nothing.

[seertaak]

> Except that it doesn't solve the fundamental problems with OOP, because it's still essentially OOP with subtyping

I'm not sure what fundamental problems you're speaking of, but what's nice about Go viz-a-vis C++ is that classes are fundamentally open. Personally, I think it's a win. By the way, I'm a C++ dev and I love C++ too. I just think Go has really interesting ideas.

[unscaled]

By "classes are open" you mean that you can add methods to classes at will by just implementing a func with the right receiver?

In that case they're not truly open: Go does not allow you to declare methods on receivers from other packages, which means you can't extend anything which wasn't written by you. Which makes open classes almost useless.