Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From: Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:32:23 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 22
Sender: news@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <18-04-035@comp.compilers>
References: <49854345-f940-e82a-5c35-35078c4189d5@gkc.org.uk> <18-03-103@comp.compilers> <18-03-042@comp.compilers> <18-03-047@comp.compilers> <18-03-075@comp.compilers> <18-03-079@comp.compilers> <18-03-101@comp.compilers> <18-04-002@comp.compilers> <18-04-003@comp.compilers> <18-04-004@comp.compilers>
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="61288"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: design, history, OOP
Posted-Date: 11 Apr 2018 13:22:45 EDT
X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2054

On 2018-04-09, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
> IMO, the evidence that many popular languages are not "powerful" is
> that they are either exclusively or primarily OO, but they implement
> only single inheritance objects.

I'm surprised that anyone finds multiple inheritance so singularly
important.

Single inheritance is really only crippling if two kinds of objects have
to inherit from a common base in order to be substitutable.

Remove that restriction and inheritance is properly reduced to the mere
code/data reuse hack that it is.

If anything, lack of multiple dispatch probably hurts more than lack
of MI.

> Wherever you stand on OO as a programming paradigm, you can't deny
> that single inheritance is the weakest variant of it.

I can place my standpoint almost anywhere in the OO programming
paradigm, yet not see this. Sorry, George!