[ilaksh]

So I guess he thinks that classes are great as long as there is never any inheritance? And so if you do that then it doesn't count as object oriented programming or something. Especially if you give it a new name like "semantic compression". Lol.

I think the newish thing is traits such as in Rust.

[wrapperup]

Yes. It's increasingly common in big C++ code bases (Unreal for example) to prefer interfaces, templates and composition over inheritance, though it's mostly found in newer code. Unreal is still fairly OOP since it is decades old.

Of course, there is some object-orientedness to it, the author even calls part of his new code "objects". I guess some people would call that OOP, but it's certainly not traditional OOP.

Rust does a really nice job of making that the first obvious thing to reach for (simple structs, traits and generics), and making the slower stuff like dyn traits (v-table indirection) more annoying and less desired. Reducing indirection and abstractions makes it easier to reason about code.

[owalt]

From the article:

> Normally, I would probably not make these member functions, but since The Witness is a more C++-ish codebase than my own, I thought it was more consistent with the style (and I don’t have a strong preference either way)

My interpretation of this is that normally he'd make plain C structs and functions that operate on them. So quite far from anything people would normally describe or think of as object oriented.