# Alternative to OOP?

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/alternative-to-oop/137543>\
**Category:** Performance\
**Tags:** question\
**Created:** [June 10, 2026, 12:51pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/alternative-to-oop/137543 "2026-06-10T12:51:16Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Benny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/49beb7/32.png) [@Benny](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Benny)\
**Post date:** [August 20, 2026, 2:21pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/alternative-to-oop/137543/21 "2026-08-20T14:21:27Z")

</div>

That wouldn’t be true either because of the Turing-completeness point e.g. the [Plum](https://github.com/beartype/plum) package for Python, but yes, it’s much better to claim that multiple dispatch has some power or expressiveness that OOP does not. It’s true the other way too, but obviously we’re here because we think one side has a larger native advantage.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gesee](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/gesee/32/217235_2.png) [@Gesee](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Gesee)\
**Post date:** [August 20, 2026, 9:26pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/alternative-to-oop/137543/22 "2026-08-20T21:26:36Z")

</div>

I would still argue that it’s not an an argument for OOP, as it’s the capacity of python as a language that allowed `plum` and not `OOP` specifically.  
Where as for MD, his strict capability + tracking of method owned by an object is enough.  
(in fact, you can even store methods in the object or use functors, whethever)

[Previous page](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/alternative-to-oop/137543.md?page=1)