But inheritance is just a shit feature imo. Situations where it would be beneficial are extremely rare. I generally just pretend it doesnt exist. There are much better alternatives to it for most situations (eg. composition, build a class from other smaller classes that do one thing)
I think this is also the better approach, making inheritance something you have to explicitly design for instead of a way to monkeypatch almost everything.
You can with "new", no?
public class Foo
{
public void Say() { Console.WriteLine("Foo!"); }
public void Think() { Console.WriteLine("I;m thinkin about thos beans");
}
public class Bar : Foo
{
new public void Say() { Console.WriteLine("Actually, Bar!"); }
}
edit: Oops yeah I'm talking rubbish, see replies for more info :D
Once I have all these really nice tiny functions, Its trivial to reorganise and replace them.
Though I find classes also very useful, a class is mainly a bucket that you put functions into. Ideally a class is a black box that does one thing. All the functions needed to do that thing are in the class and also any relevant fields. Not being able to have fields in there would be counter productive. It's just so handy to have all the functions + fields that govern this one element of your game all in one place.. When you need to make changes everything relevant is one place, and that place also functions as a black box that the other elements dont know about. So to change one feature in the game u just change or replace that one class.
Just looking at the functions, nice maintainable code would look identical in a functional or OO language. I think the big differences between functional and OO are actually not important. I could put functions in a class, or just together in the same file. Putting certain functions and fields into this same bucket is just a convenience and its intuitive to understand imo. Like I said in 6 months time when I have to change feature X I know where to look.