Agree 100%. And I think that what is commonly thought of OOP (the Java model) suffers greatly from real-life analogies like that. Not everything fits into neat

Agree 100%. And I think that what is commonly thought of OOP (the Java model) suffers greatly from real-life analogies like that. Not everything fits into neat hierarchies – not in real life and not in code. I also think that the concept of "class" suffers from a great amount of un-orthogonality. A class packages together a memory representation, an encapsulation boundary, an interface that defines functionality and a unit of type parametrisation. I find the way how Rust separates modules as the unit of encapsulation, traits as the unit of functionality and structs as the units of memory representation, very elegant. Now if one could type-parametrise modules...