Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| 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 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="65954"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | OOP, design |
| Posted-Date: | 12 Apr 2018 20:58:58 EDT |
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
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.