> In a meta-analysis of OOP-based designs, inheritance is used as the primary form of composition
Whose meta-analysis came up with that? Like to see that.
> Ironically, almost anything added after the base class (and maybe some abstracts above that) is a cross cutting concern added after the core functionality is established.
That's a bold statement (unless you have a novel definition of "cross cutting concerns") and actually backwards: The super provides the generalization and subs specialize. A cross cutting concern is a 'general' concern. AFAIK, cross cutting concern is a term originated by the inventor of AOP, and the typical garden variety CCC deals with matters that rarely have anything to do with the types to which it is applied. (Debug log in-args is a garden variety example.)
> Whose meta-analysis came up with that? Like to see that.
You'll have to dig into each language that has expanded it's composition capability and the reasoning, but the outcome is self-evident. Many languages started with simple inheritance (eg PHP, Java, VB, C++, et al) and expanded composability mechanisms over time.
> That's a bold statement (unless you have a novel definition of "cross cutting concerns") and actually backwards: ... A cross cutting concern is a 'general' concern.
I'm not going to argue about how you wish to redefine things.
Whose meta-analysis came up with that? Like to see that.
> Ironically, almost anything added after the base class (and maybe some abstracts above that) is a cross cutting concern added after the core functionality is established.
That's a bold statement (unless you have a novel definition of "cross cutting concerns") and actually backwards: The super provides the generalization and subs specialize. A cross cutting concern is a 'general' concern. AFAIK, cross cutting concern is a term originated by the inventor of AOP, and the typical garden variety CCC deals with matters that rarely have anything to do with the types to which it is applied. (Debug log in-args is a garden variety example.)