The Go authors felt that the normal type-hierarchy model of software development is easy to abuse. For example, consider the following class and the related description:

Coding in such large class hierarchies usually generates brittle code. Early decisions become very hard to change, and base class changes can have devastating consequences further down the line. However, the irony is that, early on, all of the requirements might not be clear, nor the system well understood enough, to allow for great base class design.

The Go way of object-orientation is : composition over inheritance.

For polymorphic behavior, Go uses interfaces and duck typing:

Duck typing implies that any class that has all of the methods that an interfaces advertises can be said to implement the said interface.

We shall look at more detail on object-orientation in Go later on in Chapter 3, Design Patterns.