> 3). Alternative mechanisms can provide interoperable extension only by using service abstraction themselves—and thus are equivalent to what we consider the es

> 3). Alternative mechanisms can provide interoperable extension only by using service abstraction themselves—and thus are equivalent to what we consider the essence of objects. Since virtually any language can delegate behaviour this way, the above claim is really saying that every language carries the essence of objects. (And I agree - for this definition of objects). So the follow-up question becomes "What's so special about about languages which brand themselves as OOP - as opposed to another paradigm?"