I saw a few examples of Rust code with a good amount of generics sprinkled in and given what (seemed to me) the parent comment was suggesting, I assumed that was the case.
That said, I remember reading in the docs about many usually OOP related concepts like RAII, boxing/unboxing, operator overloading, the aforementioned generics.
You mostly don't care about these things in Go. Can we agree that Rust is a bit more OOP oriented than Go at least?
- Parametric polymorpism isn't OOP, pretty much every halfway-decent language has it (including Haskell, which is as functional as they come).
- Boxing in Rust isn't what you think it is - it's just heap allocation (more like malloc than the monstrosity that is boxing in Java).
- Again, operator overloading isn't OOP either. Seriously, is it that hard to believe that "you get to use + and - with your own types" is an expectation independent of any paradigm?
> I must have gotten the wrong idea.
Yes. Go and Rust are both very far from what most people would consider "OOP".
Funcional can be considered an alternative vs imperative and declarative, and usually languages are a mix of the three. And any of these 3 style can support OOP.
BTW, plenty of half-decent languages don't have generics.