[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
MI: why?
>
> > As for Smalltalk, single inheritance is just flat out a mistake in
> > language design. (If you disagree, don't bother trying to convince me,
> > because you won't create even the tiniest bit of doubt in my mind.) I
> > cannot stand the thought of learning another of those SI class libraries
> > with an outrageously deep hierarchy with functionality pushed up into
> > totally counterintuitive classes in order to get it where it can be
> > shared. A well-designed MI-based framework/library is so much easier to
> > understand and extend than an SI one.
>
> I agree 100%.
Now this is interesting. I try to learn by other's mistakes and from other's
advice, and I have heard a lot of condemnation of multiple inheritance.
Consequently I have carefully avoided it when it is present (C++ - may it rot) and
not missed it when it isn't there (delphi - but then delphi is primarily used by me
as a database front end, so it's a bit irrelevant). I don't condemn MI and I would
rather a language provided it, so I could ignore it, rather than be denied it by
someone else's choice.
I can imagine rare cases where it might be valuable but I haven't personally come
across them yet. I am wondering if MI from purely abstract base classes is at all
bad. I don't like the feel of MI from non-abstract base classes - it doesn't feel
right.
Please tell me more about why MI is good/bad/misused/whatever. I feel that I may be
missing out on a valuable facility.
thanks
jt
Follow-Ups:
References: