I haven't, but, at least insofar as my thinking has developed (and insofar as Erlang supports it), the question of inheritance is more orthogonal than essential to the specific point I was trying to make. And failed to state clearly, so here it is: This essay is right, and Armstrong is also right when he said "Erlang might be the only object-oriented language". The tension there isn't, at the root, because Armstrong was confused about what OOP is really about; it's because OOP itself was (and is) confused about what OOP is really about.
That said, I would also argue that, like "object", "inheritance" is a word that can describe many distinct concepts, that and here, too, OOP's intellectual traditions create a muddle by conflating them.
That said, I would also argue that, like "object", "inheritance" is a word that can describe many distinct concepts, that and here, too, OOP's intellectual traditions create a muddle by conflating them.