Yes I agree with you. The pattern is "composition" vs "inheritance". Defining a "thing" as "what it can do" instead of "what it is". Instead of saying that "a duck is a Bird which in turn is an Animal which in turn is a LivingThing" (Duck -> Bird -> Animal -> LivingThing) you focus on what a duck can do: a duck "quacks, swims, etc":

    class Duck(Swimmable, Quackable, FishEatable...)

I think there's still a place for "inheritance" based approach for APIs that need to be very strict about subtyping: would be hard to express covariance/invariance/contravariance without it.