Re: Eiffel and Java

[mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matt Kennel)]

Alexander Asteroth (aster@horz.technopark.gmd.de) wrote:
: Marcos F. F. de Macedo wrote:
:  
: > Fergus Henderson wrote:
: > > base class.  In Sather, one can simply create a new interface and
: > > declare these classes to be instances of this interface, without
: > > modifying the existing code.
:  
: > This kind of interface/implementation in Sather is diferent of the usual
: > concept. This is subtype/subclass independence. That is a good thing in
: > Sather that I have not yet thinked of the exact consequences.
: > 
: > Interfaces in Java have nothing to do with this concepts. Interface in
: > Java is an implementation restriction (not a conceptual one) to avoid
: > multiple-inheritance and work yet work with static typing. Interface is
: > java is just a deferred class with just deferred routines. Nothing more,
: > nothing less.

: I don't see your point. What is missing in Java's interfaces.

Genericity, of course, and post-hoc supertyping. 

: If it's that you don't have to touch existing code (as F.H. wrote) 
: that has to do with supertyping, not with the abstract classes concept
: of Sather (Or am I completetly wrong here?). 

".... This, I tell you brother/ 
      you can't have one without the other, "

: Alexander Asteroth

--
Matthew B. Kennel/mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu/I do not speak for ORNL, DOE or UT
Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/ 
  I would not, could not SAVE ON PHONE,    |==================================
  I would not, could not BUY YOUR LOAN,    |The US Government does not like
  I would not, could not MAKE MONEY FAST,  |spam either.  It is ILLEGAL!
  I would not, could not SEND NO CA$H,     |USC Title 47, section 227
  I would not, could not SEE YOUR SITE,    |p (b)(1)(C) www.law.cornell.edu/
  I would not, could not EAT VEG-I-MITE,   | /uscode/47/227.html
  I do *not* *like* GREEN CARDS AND SPAM!  |==================================
               M A D - I - A M!