What's wrong with inheritance?
Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:43:48 +0200
On Sun, Sep 27, 1998 at 04:33:05AM -0400, email@example.com wrote:
> Here and there I see comments from Fare about the fact that
> inheritance being such a lame thing, but no clear explanation of why?
Hum. Does this mean that my Glossary article is not clear enough?
I guess so.
> Did saw a comment in glossary saying that inheritance can be
> replaced by higher-order functions, but it is not clear in my mind how.
Inheritance is just defining a mixin and using it at once.
> Maybe a small example could help me understand.
Maybe the classical books/articles by Abadi and Cardelli may help.
Also Kris De Volder's thesis.
There are *many* articles about giving a formal semantics to objects,
lost of them available on the net.
Ask bibliographical databases, AltaVista and/or FermiVista.
Read some of them. You might be enlightened.
And of course, contribute your findings to the Review subproject,
by sending URLs/BibTeX entries for the best/worst articles...
> Inheritance still seem to me as a good way to achieve polymorphism.
If you're using a dynamically typed language, it may be.
## Faré | VN: Ð£ng-Vû Bân | Join the TUNES project! http://www.tunes.org/ ##
## FR: François-René Rideau | TUNES is a Useful, Not Expedient System ##
## Reflection&Cybernethics | Project for a Free Reflective Computing System ##
If mice were the ultimate input device, men would be born
with one arm and three fingers.