> These days, OO programing is mostly frowned upon.
Only in certain circles. For the software world as a whole, "mostly" is rather an overstatement. (For that matter, for the software world as a whole, "mostly" is an overstatement no matter what claim follows the "mostly".)
> OO added the idea of implementation inheritance to interfaces, and that's mostly a bad idea.
There is more than one flavor of OO. Not all of them support implementation inheritance. You're using a feature of a sub-part to complain about the whole. (In fairness, though, this is a thread about C++...)
Current best practice is "prefer composition over inheritance". There are places, though, where inheritance is the correct answer. When you hit those places, use it. Where it's not, don't use it.
Only in certain circles. For the software world as a whole, "mostly" is rather an overstatement. (For that matter, for the software world as a whole, "mostly" is an overstatement no matter what claim follows the "mostly".)
> OO added the idea of implementation inheritance to interfaces, and that's mostly a bad idea.
There is more than one flavor of OO. Not all of them support implementation inheritance. You're using a feature of a sub-part to complain about the whole. (In fairness, though, this is a thread about C++...)
Current best practice is "prefer composition over inheritance". There are places, though, where inheritance is the correct answer. When you hit those places, use it. Where it's not, don't use it.