Despite it looking cool and useful, IMO it's more of a (quite pleasant) sugar than an OOP concept. There's also a try/catch example where you'd get similar behavior.
I feel this is a bit opinionated:
> "but this is clearly rather verbose and it has to be repeated for every call."
I think the example in the link is what try/catch is meant for. Message passing systems in C/C++ handle situations where a disabled/unavailable service receives communication and recovers.
As for C++ and replacing objects:
I feel this is also a language-specific gotcha that doesn't hinder a learner understanding OOP. But C++ has many more gotchas than that.
For instance, there's no pure "interface" keyword. It can still be done (and is), code example: https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines..., how Google Style guide defines it: https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Interfaces