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

bartc <bc@freeuk.com>
Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:51:08 +0100

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[12 earlier articles]
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)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support rpw3@rpw3.org (2018-04-12)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support bc@freeuk.com (bartc) (2018-04-12)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2018-04-12)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2018-04-12)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2018-04-13)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2018-04-13)
[10 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: bartc <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:51:08 +0100
Organization: virginmedia.com
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 18-04-024 18-04-034 18-04-041
Keywords: OOP, design, comment
Content-Language: en-GB

On 12/04/2018 00:09, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
> Am 10.04.2018 um 20:32 schrieb George Neuner:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:48:43 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
>> (Anton Ertl) wrote:
>
>> Smalltalk had/has single inheritence only, and it's dynamic dispatch
>> mechanism is very different from that of C++.
>
> Isn't *multiple inheritance* one of the features that C++ proved
> impractical? Which other languages support multiple inheritance?
>
> DoDi
> [Lots of languages have multiple inheritance.  Python is one of the
> more popular these days.  As you've seen, opinions vary about how
> useful it is.  -John]


It's so useful that I have to go and look up what exactly it means (and
then I'm not much the wiser).


But I guess some people develop dependences on such features. If I
question some exotic feature in the Python group, there will always be
someone for whom it is indispensable.


(Never mind that Python lacks what to me are fundamental features such
as named constants, 'switch', records, enumerations, repeat-n-times
loops, static local variables, pass-by-reference, or goto.


Some of those can apparently be emulated - usually badly and
cumbersomely - by making use of the advanced features.)


The trouble is, if you dare to put forward such a point of view, someone
is going to mention the 'blub paradox', just to put you in your place.


--
bartc
[Python certainly has a lot of theology. I believe that python users
would say that your misssing features are implemented through simple
idioms and aren't worth gunking up the languages, e.g. repeat N times
is "for i in range(N):". But like I said, it's theology. -John]


Post a followup to this message

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