Re: OO: Threat or Menace? (was: Re: OO fans bashing Joins)

<topmind_at_technologist.com> wrote in message news:8b454e$h97$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <sd55n5st7f282_at_corp.supernews.com>,
> "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <jfoster_at_ricochet.net> wrote:
 

> > "topmind" <topmindNOtoSPAM_at_technologist.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:05684040.d97411a2_at_usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com...
 

> > > What about small and medium projects? Should app builders for
> > > them be burdened by constructs meant for mostly larger projects?
 

> > I see what you mean here. I'm afraid I've been looking at this from a
> > C++ish perspective, in which avoiding overhead for unused features is
> > supposedly a priority. This is also true of the "Object Assist" add-in
> > for VB 4 and 5 (but apparently not 6 =( ). If you don't use it, you
 don't
> > get the overhead.
 

> I was thinking more about developer misuse and confusion rather than
> CPU speed.

That's what I keep hearing about all new language features. Eventually, people learn how and when to use the new features and a set of best practices finally emerges.

> > Multiple inheritance? This is needed for things C where C is both an A
> > *and* a B, but neither A nor B is an ancestor of the other. However,
 this
> > brings in the whole "Multiple Inheritance: Threat or Menace" debate...
 

> But why not view those as attributes instead of multiple hierarchical
> taxonomies? (I suspect most OO fans would use some funky "pattern"
> instead of multiple-inheritance anyhow.)

Perhaps your attributes model is itself a funky "pattern"!

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster_at_ricochet.net>  Space Cooties! <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!