On this page.... RSS 2.0 | Atom 1.0 | CDF
# Thursday, March 10, 2005

I was just talking (writing, actually) to some buddies about why we can't have multiple inheritance.  James Avery pointed me to this blog by Wesner Moise, discussing the complications and potential perf hits we could take with MI.  He says that Eiffel's done it using the compiler so that you can have default implementations for interface methods that get emitted where (I presume) you don't implement it yourself.

Truly, I don't care what we call it.  I just would like the convenience of being able to have default implementations of methods that can be shared among multiple types and can be overridden.  If you want to call it default implementations for interface, multiple inheritance, mix-ins, or whatever, I really could care less as long as I don't have to copy and paste the same code over and over (or maintain all those copies) or write calls to helper methods (and write the corresponding helper types and methods).

I also don't particularly care if it is two or three levels of indirection to make the call.  That's really getting a bit overly concerned with performance; developer time, my time, is far more important than a few clicks on the processor, even multiplied a novemdecillion times.  We can upgrade and scale out relatively cheaply, but we only have so much quality developer time.

Thursday, March 10, 2005 3:32:52 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
Comments are closed.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are solely my own personal opinions, founded or unfounded, rational or not, and you can quote me on that.

Thanks to the good folks at dasBlog!

Copyright © 2019 J. Ambrose Little