Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support

Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com>
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:32:23 +0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support genew@telus.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support 157-073-9834@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support 157-073-9834@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2018-04-11)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2018-04-11)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2018-04-12)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support bc@freeuk.com (bartc) (2018-04-12)
[7 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:32:23 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
References: <49854345-f940-e82a-5c35-35078c4189d5@gkc.org.uk> 18-03-103 18-03-042 18-03-047 18-03-075 18-03-079 18-03-101 18-04-002 18-04-003 18-04-004
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="61288"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: design, history, OOP
Posted-Date: 11 Apr 2018 13:22:45 EDT

On 2018-04-09, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
> IMO, the evidence that many popular languages are not "powerful" is
> that they are either exclusively or primarily OO, but they implement
> only single inheritance objects.


I'm surprised that anyone finds multiple inheritance so singularly
important.


Single inheritance is really only crippling if two kinds of objects have
to inherit from a common base in order to be substitutable.


Remove that restriction and inheritance is properly reduced to the mere
code/data reuse hack that it is.


If anything, lack of multiple dispatch probably hurts more than lack
of MI.


> Wherever you stand on OO as a programming paradigm, you can't deny
> that single inheritance is the weakest variant of it.


I can place my standpoint almost anywhere in the OO programming
paradigm, yet not see this. Sorry, George!

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.