Re: MI: why?

• To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• Subject: Re: MI: why?
• From: Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com>
• Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:45:01 -0500 (EST)
• References: <uaIe4.12653$Ce.289242@monger.newsread.com> <387BC10E.BED9F41F@miqs.com> <20000112004057.18210.qmail@gorn.americom.com> <387C849F.BC993358@dial.pipex.com> <387CD2A9.1D7DF8A@miqs.com> <85ji5n$nn9$1@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net> <FoAI1F.rr@world.std.com>
• Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:11458 comp.lang.smalltalk:94346

Carl E Gundel wrote:
> 
> : Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com> wrote in message
> : 387CD2A9.1D7DF8A@miqs.com">news:387CD2A9.1D7DF8A@miqs.com...
> : >
> : > It's interesting to note that the only OO languages without MI are
> : > either older, early generation OO (Smalltalk, Objective-C, Object Pascal)
> 
> Java is not an older OO language, and it doesn't have MI.  For some reason
> I keep hearing that interfaces are a form of MI, but this is completely
> misleading.  If this were the case, then Smalltalk's ability to provide
> polymorphism without explicit interfaces would also qualify as MI, but it
> clearly doesn't.

Hey now, I agree with you re Java/Smalltalk/MI, but I think you unfairly
truncated my quote:

> It's interesting to note
> that the only OO languages without MI are either older, early generation
> OO (Smalltalk, Objective-C, Object Pascal) or poorly designed kludges
> (Java).

• A question
• From: "Stephen J. Guthrie" <steve.guthrie@mantissa.com>
• Re: A question
• From: Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com>
• Re: A question
• From: rwk@americom.com
• MI: why?
• From: jt <gkt37@dial.pipex.com>
• Re: MI: why?
• From: Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com>
• Re: MI: why?
• From: "Eric Clayberg" <clayberg@instantiations.com>
• Re: MI: why?
• From: carlg@world.std.com (Carl E Gundel)

• Prev: [Review] Object-Oriented Programming: A Unified Foundation
• Next: Re: MI: why?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread