I've been kind of aggressive in response to your comments, because I've found them condescending, but I think what we're actually revealing is that the way you'

I've been kind of aggressive in response to your comments, because I've found them condescending, but I think what we're actually revealing is that the way you're using "object-oriented" is ontologically discontinuous with the conception of languages derived from their formal semantics as I understand it. Features with the same formal semantics (Rust traits & Haskell type classes), expressed through distinct syntax, can correspond to different concepts in the ontology of languages which object-orientation exists within. I might be tempted to say that object-orientation has no explanatory value - "it just means polymorphism!" - but I think what's more accurate is to say that its explanatory value operates within a distinct discourse from the discourse I am familiar with.