All right, lets see...

You cannot do procedural programming in Java

You can't do it in C# either yet you use it as an example.

Writing a simple 'Hello World' program in Java isn't contrived OOP as an exercise, its contrived OOP because that's what the language demands.

Yes, thats true because it isn't a language designed to make "Hello world" programs. If all you want is to write short "Hello world" programs I'd recommend something else, like just make an HTML label tag and open it with a browser.

We can agree though, that most early programming habits anyone picks up in any language are best to hit the dustbin sooner than later. Rarely are first habits good habits.

it just so happens that among those goals are enforcing a particular and rigid view of OOP best-practices, protecting fully-functioning programmers from themselves, and a misguided attempt to make Java programmers interchangeable by creating a language that forces them into the lowest-common denominator.

You could say that of most of modern languages. Nevermind the recent wave of people advocating even more religiously opinionated languages in the functional paradigm. Fixating on Java seems such a 90s thing to do. Where the concept was relatively new. Python was new, JavaScript was new. C and C++ were the way of making applications. Nowadays? Makes no sense, but I see people repeating it again and again.

IMO, C# did a much better job achieving Java's technical goals, and was better for throwing off as much dogma as it could.

Have you ever developed an application in .NET? Language is fine, (and practically Java in PascalCase 90% of the time regardless of what most C# purists say) but the ecosystem is centered around Bill Gates butt. I dont even know how could you paint it as the "least dogmatic" of the two.

Yeah, its the "least dogmatic" if you already use Visual Studio all day and deploy to a Windows Server computer every day, and only do fat destkop clients for Windows 7+ in WPF. As soon as you get out of that tiny cage you're thrown to the wolves. GUI solutions for other platforms are broken. Web solutions for other platforms are either broken (Xamarin) or in alpha stage (.NET Core). Nevermind finding tools to help you out in that endeavor because there is like only one half assed IDE out there that manages to understand C# and Linux/OSX at the same time.

Yeah C/C++ are not very dogmatic, but people are constantly trying to replace them with more dogmatic equivalents (Rust, Go among others), and C# is Microsoft's eco system baby and barely knows how to crawl anywhere else, nevermind the fact that C# 7 stuff and above are very, very close into making it a kitchen sink of features like C++ is.

I'm just not seeing your counter examples at all man.

Don't look at me. I think the "but but I have to type "static" and put it in a class file!" complaint is stupid. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... C# has exactly the same requirements thus why I dont see the point.

Inheritance is a very critical part of OO and I would argue without it you're probably not doing OO. Likewise functional programming with explicit state is really not functional programming.

I disagree. I find that in my modern code inheritance plays a very minor role. Polymorphism is used even less frequently.

I'm sure your code is fantastic, but is probably not true OO.

I disagree. It is a fundamental rule of OOD that you should use composition by default, and inheritance only when necessary.

In particular, I'd go as far as to say that if OO code uses implementation inheritance extensively, it's probably bad code :lol:

As mentioned earlier, there's a big difference between implementation inheritance and interface inheritance, though. The latter sees some use in OOD code, but really not that much most of the time. The former is frankly a code smell, and doesn't even exist as a concept in "true OOD" (it was added later as a convenience feature by OOP language designers, and overly abused by early OOP adopters).

In order of how common these features should be used in OOD code: Composition > Interface inheritance > Implementation inheritance.

But in "typical C++ bullshit" code, you see: Implementation inheritance > Interface inheritance > Composition... which becomes a straw-man argument for people to use in their ill-informed "OO is bad" debates.