🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4ddke3$5lf@fountain.mindlink.net>, <brent_bysouth@mindlink.bc.ca> 
writes:
> olczyk@sunphy1 (Thadeus Olczyk) wrote:
> 
> Oh well, I'm probably falling for the bait here...
> 
> >As long as Delphi supports the toxic combination static typing and 
> >single inheritance , people will not be able to use polymorphism
> >to replace case statements which will always make Delphi slower in any
> >large application. 
> 
I missed part of the beginning of this thread, but what's your point
Thadeus? C++ didn't even have MI until version 2. C++ is and always
was statically typed. Ada is also statically typed. Smalltalk and
Objective-C (though dynamically typed) don't have MI. Forte' Software's
TOOL language is statically typed, and doesn't support MI, even though
it compiles down to C++. So, what's the point? Was pre-2.0 C++
"toxic"? Besides that, unless you're using MI for a mix-in architecture
instead of just the general combining of classes, you've probably
got the wrong design anyway.

[.. snip ..]

> >I would like to see how you justify a claim of ease of mainenance when 
Delphi 
> >does not support MI. Implication-- under some circumstances one cannot 
abstract
> >out common behavior and therefor must cut and paste code-- ie-- they must 
copy bugs.
> >Everyone I know agrees that that causes a maintenace nightmare.
> 
> Yes, I agree that cutting & pasting code brings on maintenance
> nightmare.  I'm less sure that a lack of MI does though, as would many
> others.  MI vs. SI is an age old argument, and you're not going to get
> a concensus on it anytime soon.  If you really want a discussion on
> it, start a thread in comp.object!

Ever hear of composition and delegation? MI is not a feature supported
by every OO language. If you're developing in Smalltalk, Obj-C, or
Forte', you've got to use other mechanisms.
If you listen to object purist, any language that is not a "pure OO" 
language isn't OO at all -- with or without MI. Since C++ falls 
into the hybrid category, it's often called non-OO. In fact, applying
your MI argument plus the purist viewpoint, you're probably left with
only one choice -- use Eiffel! It supports MI and is "pure". But, once again,
what's your point? OOPLs are just implementation TOOLS to implement
your OO analysis and design models. Some languages and environments
are better suited for some things, others for other things. Use
the best tool for the current job, and be done with it.

KeithB