If you mean: never declare a function as taking a particular class instance ("is"), only interfaces/traits/mixins/whatever ("has" / "can do").
Then yes, we agree.
As soon as you declare a function as taking a class instance, you're limiting to what something "is". I don't think ontologies are particularly useful as a means of abstraction.
Yes, you can do better with careful architecture, but the footgun is still there and I'm just saying we should probably get rid of it instead of working around it.
If you mean: never declare a function as taking a particular class instance ("is"), only interfaces/traits/mixins/whatever ("has" / "can do").
Then yes, we agree.
As soon as you declare a function as taking a class instance, you're limiting to what something "is". I don't think ontologies are particularly useful as a means of abstraction.
Yes, you can do better with careful architecture, but the footgun is still there and I'm just saying we should probably get rid of it instead of working around it.