Re: MI Hownotto by Betrand Meyer

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 06:39:07 +0300 (MSK), Alexander E. Kopilovich wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>> But what were an alternative to MI?
> 
> Perhaps a proper alternative to MI may be a set of different kinds of MI (each
> equipped with its own name) instead of a single notion overloaded with complex
> rules.
>
> Look at algebra for a good example: there we have different compositions of
> two algebraic objects - direct sum, direct product, tensor product etc.
> Mathematicians do not try to pack all those things into one overcomplicated
> notion for everyday use.

To me these refer to just one case, which is already handled quite well.
That's when the structure of inheritance is a DAG. [ OK, there are minor
naming problems, but mathematicians are accustomed to extremely hairy
notations. (:-)) ]

Mathematical structures are simple (I don't mean the sematic of) comparing
with ones found in programming. The reason is that the declarative
framework of a programming language surpasses human's abilities by margin.
This allows us to construct things, which nobody could understand in all
necessary details if they were just written on paper.

Surely a study of algebraic properties of type structures is necessary.
However I don't think it would leave us with a smaller number of cases.
Group theory is an example, that this need not to happen. I think we will
end up with far more complex things than diamond diagram.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de