Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From: Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: OOP language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 03:28:26 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 36
Sender: news@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <18-04-055@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> <18-04-035@comp.compilers> <18-04-052@comp.compilers>
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="98879"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: OOP, design
Posted-Date: 13 Apr 2018 13:17:34 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:2071

On 2018-04-13, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:32:23 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
><157-073-9834@kylheku.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> That's why SI languages implement interfaces - the poor person's MI.

Well, SI in *static* languages!

SI in *dynamic* languages doesn't need interfaces.

I should know; I made one:

  1> (defstruct apple nil (:method rot (me) `@me rots`))
  #<struct-type apple>
  2> (defstruct orange nil (:method rot (me) `@me rots`))
  #<struct-type orange>
  3> (each ((f (list (new apple) (new orange))))
       (prinl f.(rot)))
  "#S(apple) rots"
  "#S(orange) rots"

apple and orange are not related; no "rottable" interface is
needed to legitimize the .(rot) call.

I mean, phooey; over my dead &body.