Actually, I shouldn't have made claims about "the core reason why inheritance was developed" because I've no idea why it was developed. On the other hand, I be

Actually, I shouldn't have made claims about "the core reason why inheritance was developed" because I've no idea why it was developed. On the other hand, I believe I know why it is necessary (as opposed to convenient). In many languages there is functionality it provides that is otherwise unavailable. In Java, or C++, or Python, how can we allow superclass methods to call methods on a subclass (a form of late binding) without inheritance? I don't think it's possible. So unless I am much mistaken (and please correct me if I am wrong), inheritance is convenient for reducing boilerplate but necessary for late binding (in many languages). Have I made a mistake in my analysis somewhere?