🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DpEJnu.DDL@news.hawaii.edu>,
Peter Hinely <phinely@Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>In article <4k3cdo$np5@taurus.adnc.com>, Terry Sikes <tsikes@netcom.com> wrote:
>>dshaker@samsara.smalltalk.com (Doug Shaker) wrote:
>>
[stuff deleted]
>>It has all the right features
>>in it, and it's very elegantly constructed and architected."
>>
>
>What about multiple inheritance?  Functions as first class objects?

Java does have multiple interface inheritance, which is good enough 99.9%
of the time. (Actually, I've *never* needed needed multiple implementation
inheritance)

The biggest feature I see missing from Java would be generics. After that
would be functions as objects. That's in order of haow useful I'd find
these things to be. I've never had a use for multiple implementation
inheritance, and I've never seen any example that really needed it.
(I'm not saying they don't exist. I've just never seen such a case, and
can't think of one.)

In fact, I kind of wish Java was a bit more restrictive, and didn't allow
adding public members to a class. This would force people to create
hierachies consisting of interfaces for the internal parts, and classes
just at (or near) the leaves.

-- 
        Carl Laurence Gonsalves - clgonsal@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
                   Computer Science, University of Waterloo
               http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~clgonsal/
                   http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~clgonsal/