Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> >   Then they are not object-oriented languages. Some kind of inheritance is
> > a basic feature of object-oriented languages.

> I'm not entirely sure that's true. The concept of an object does not implicitly
> require inheritance, since the principles of modularity with private states etc
> can still apply, and as such a language can be oriented about objects without
> needing inheritance. Though all the OO languages I know of do have inheritance.

  Don't confuse modules with object-orientedness.

  As I explained previously, modules are a minimum but not sufficient
requirement for an OO language.
  If you have modules with no inheritance and no dynamic binding what
you have is a modular language, not an OO one. Modula3 is an example of
this.

> I agree. For example, the only reason I'm planning to implement inheritance is
> so that I can have an interface class with virtual functions. No shared code
> whatsoever.

  So basically you will have interfaces (such as in Java) but no inheritable
classes?
  The problem with that is that it forces code repetition, which is not
good (IMHO this is a bad problem in Java interfaces). Besides forcing the
user of the interface to implement things which may be useless, it makes
it too easy to break the true "is-a" relation between base and derived
classes (in other words, when you make code which handles objects of
the type of a certain interface you just have to trust that the inherited
class implements all of its methods properly; you can't force a certain
method to work always in a certain way).

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message