[quelsolaar]

This is a good example of how a good programmer is more important than a a complex language with complex features. C lets you use OO if you want it ,and it doesn't require many more lines to do it, but it doesn't push you to always do it. Ive used this a number of times, but its always because its the right approach for the problem, not to be object oriented because the language is.

[mrathi12]

> C lets you use OO if you want it

Tenuous - if you are willing to implement objects yourself then you could use C sure, but I don't think that means the language "lets you use OO". It's like you could also probably implement algebraic datatypes in C using unions and structs, but would that mean "C lets you use algebraic datatypes"? I would strongly argue no.

[ncmncm]

All our languages are Turing-complete. None actively prevent any sort of programming,

Thus, to meaningfully claim that a language supports some programming technique, it has to automate it to some appreciable degree. C manifestly does not; it automates nothing but stack frames and register allocation. Every detail is hand-coded, with every opportunity to make trivial, hard-to-spot mistakes that nothing but exhaustive testing can bring to your attention.