Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Right. But if you can't do multiple inheritance, you can't do that with 
> abstract classes either. Interfaces don't replace abstract classes, they 
> replace multiple inheritance. Abstract classes without multiple 
> inheritance is not a replacement for interfaces, either.

  But why forbid multiple inheritance?
  Everyone talks about multiple inheritance like it was a scary monster.
I have never understood why. All the examples of bad usages of multiple
inheritance are of the same type as how regular inheritance can be
used wrongly or how operator overloading can be used wrongly. Or what
the heck, how variable names can be used wrongly.

  As with all those other features, multiple inheritance is a very
powerful and useful feature when you know how to use it right.
  This is one reason why I hate Java: By trying to "protect" inexperienced
programmers they have taken away useful features from experienced ones who
know how to use the features right. My attitude with Java is "yes, I know
how things can be used wrongly, but I'm not going to, so give me the damn
features, ok?"

> >   This is one thing which I have never understood (and probably never
> > will) about interfaces: They *force* you to perform one of the basic
> > sins in programming: Code repetition.

> Well, more like they make it easier for the compiler-writer.

  So the maker of the compiler is simply lazy? ;)

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message