this is a pretty good series of posts but I was rather surprised at where the series ended, with more (hypothetical) OOP abstraction instead of less. trying to

this is a pretty good series of posts but I was rather surprised at where the series ended, with more (hypothetical) OOP abstraction instead of less. trying to fit game rules into a language's type system is a common thing for novice programmers to attempt, because it seems like the perfect logical application of these type system rules you just learned about when learning the language you're using. I kept expecting the article series to get around to reducing the system down to something like a Player class with a PlayerClass enum and member (and ditto for Weapon), then branching logic based on that, instead of trying to pack it into the type system.