C++ can be OO, but isn't always OO. If OO is defined as having polymorphic runtime function invocation, then C++ allows you to opt-in to this behavior with 'vir

C++ can be OO, but isn't always OO. If OO is defined as having polymorphic runtime function invocation, then C++ allows you to opt-in to this behavior with 'virtual' and heap allocation, vs. Java which requires you to opt-out with 'final' and all objects are always heap allocated. My biggest thing in support of OO is that it encourages DRY more affectively than other paradigms, IMO. But I am finding Rust's balancing of functional w/ OO allows for you to pick the best method to DRY (don't repeat yourself). Anyone who doesn't practice DRY programming doesn't understand the cost of maintaining production code and technical debt.