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

George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
Thu, 12 Apr 2018 20:57:49 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[16 earlier articles]
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)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (2018-05-05)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 20:57:49 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
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 18-04-035
Keywords: OOP, design

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


>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.


That's why SI languages implement interfaces - the poor person's MI.




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


I agree that multiple dispatch is at least as important.




>> 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!


You can uncover his eyes, but you can't make him see. <grin>
Sorry Kaz!




George


Post a followup to this message

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