RE: Java interface natural history was RE: "static" declaration

[address@hidden]

> > Further analysis could reveal interfaces struggling to get out of the
> > Lisp code, and multiple inheritance and closures struggling to get
> > out of the Java code.
> 
> My guess is that there are plenty of interfaces struggling to get out of a
> lot of Java code, too, the JDK included. 

Yes, that is my impression as well.

 When looking at any large library
> API, in just about any language, I always find it striking how much
> repetition there is.  Part of the problem is that factoring across disparate
> parts of an API tends (realistically) to have to be done after the fact, by
> which time it may be too late;

Yes, the Java libraries developed over time and
then had to stay compatible.  It's a very good
example of the Gabriel "worse is better" point;
if they had held Java back until all this stuff
was clean and beautiful, Java would not have been
a success.


 and another point is simply that there may be
> language limitations, performance costs, etc. involved in the sort of reuse
> I'm talking about.

Going through interfaces was extra-expensive in
early Java implementations, and I'm sure this must
have influenced library designers to not use
interface where interfaces were logically called
for.
> 
> Anton
> 

-- Dan