Goodbye, shitty Car extends Vehicle object-orientation tutorial

I propose a new rule for discussions of object-oriented programming:

> **Anyone who brings up examples of Dog, Bike, Car, Person,
> or other real-world objects, unless they are talking about writing a
> clone of The Sims or something, is immediately shot**.

I feel that this new policy will improve the quality of the discourse
enormously.

[Henning Koch wrote][] about his encounter with dependency injection:

> Aside from having snorted coke through my nose over “nearly
> tautologic diagrams” I feel the need to defend Martin Fowler’s
> [article][Fowler] because it had such a profound effect on me when
> it was published. Although I had been playing with “objects” and
> “classes” before, this article finally made me understand what OOP
> was all about. This is not true for many other articles and yes, I’m
> looking at you, shitty `Car extends Vehicle` OOP tutorial.

[Henning Koch wrote]: http://www.netalive.org/swsu/archives/2005/10/in_defense_of_the_nearly_tautologic_diagram_1.html
  (Henning Koch, posted on blog “Software will Save Us”, 2005-10-13, “In defense of the nearly
tautologic diagram”)
[Fowler]: http://martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html
  (Inversion of Control Containers and the Dependency Injection pattern, by Martin Fowler, 2004-01-23)

Why `Car extends Vehicle` or `Duck extends Bird` are terrible examples.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The `Car extends Vehicle` or `Duck extends Bird` type of tutorial
obscures more than it illuminates.  In good OO programming, we don’t