> I would argue that just having strong type system and bundling methods with data gets you the vast majority of the usefulness of OOP.
Yes, a module system brings almost all of the advantages of OOP. The one remaining is structure abstraction (things like interfaces on Java derived languages, or type classes on Haskell derived ones).
But well, none of those are even typically associated with OOP. The OOP languages just have those features, like they have variables too.
Yep. Rust has all of these features (modules, structs with associated methods and type classes (traits)). But nobody thinks of it as an OO language. In fact, I’ve heard that many people struggle with rust if they’ve come from a heavily OO language like Java. You have to structure your code a little differently if you don’t have classes.
Modula apparently had many of these features too - and that predated what we now think of as object oriented programming. The good parts of OOP aren’t OOP.
Yes, a module system brings almost all of the advantages of OOP. The one remaining is structure abstraction (things like interfaces on Java derived languages, or type classes on Haskell derived ones).
But well, none of those are even typically associated with OOP. The OOP languages just have those features, like they have variables too.