Yes, but in common discussion, noone when talking about OOP is referring to inheritence-less OOP. No common programming language uses it, few to no programmers practice it. OOP/w inheritance is the default item being discussed.

And why is "common discussion" technically relevant? This is not a fault of OOP but of education.

You're talking about about OOP-B, everyone here is talking about OOP-A. OOP-B isn't really a part of what's being discussed.

Anyone can bring it up, but "education" isn't relevant here. It's not what was discussed in the article, or the comments.

As neither of you, I'm talking about OOP. Nobody's limiting the discussion to composition or inheritance. Otherwise we'd be talking about how 'inheritance sucks' rather than 'OOP sucks'.

> in which case the question also never arises.

I'm not sure I see that.

If class A and B wrap a C by composition and expose, respectively, `a` and `b`, then I still very much have the choice of which I'm building. Perhaps less so if they wrap a C by reference, so the C can be reused (it's too late at night to be sure I've thought it all the way through).