[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Java interface natural history was RE: "static" declaration
Ken Anderson wrote:
> Are you saying that no body with experience with Common Lisp, said to
> you something like "I miss multiple inheritance"?
This particular software system had no need of multiple inheritance.
is a great way to deal with certain modularity needs. We did not have
We didn't need a Runge-Kutte algorithm either; nothing wrong with R-K
but it just
didn't come up in this particular project.
> And nobody complained that they had to implement an interface
> multiple times.
Well, if there were two implementations that were entirely different,
was nothing to complain about. If there were implementations with code in
common, we made a base class and inherited from it. People did complain,
as I say, about having to have an interface and also have a base class.
say, why can't we just make the base class be an abstract class and use
the type? My answer: because someday someone might want to make an
implementation of this type that has no need to share any implementation
the existing base class.
> My analysis of rt.jar was just an intro. When i checked that i had
> several hundred .jar files on my machine (many more than a year old),
> i didn't want to analyze them all.
> I'm open to studying whatever jar's anyone suggests, I'm interested in
> the natural history of real programs.
Well, I'm not sure how much Java is written in the style that I
advocate, i.e. a style that stresses
using interfaces rather than base classes as types.