Re: Eiffel and Java

[donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison)]

Jon Anthony writes:

:Well - yes, I know that is how Sather works in this area.  I meant
:that in the Eiffel case you would have to fake this with a class which
:you happen to "really implement" by means of another separate class.

You wouldn't *want* to try to fake it simply because you don't need to. 
Trying to fake it is like attempting to cut a tree down with a chainsaw by 
bashing the sharp end against the tree just because you're used to using an 
axe - in other words, using a tool in a different way from that intended.

:So, you don't think the approaches _are_ different?????????!?!?!?!

No, they are obviously different.

I am disagreeing with the claim that everyone involved in that discussion 
(about the benefits or otherwise of separating interface from implementation) 
agreed on what the issues were. They did not. Some people thought particular 
things were relevant to the issue which others (maybe only myself) considered irrelevant. There was no general agreement on what the issues were.

(I don't accept that it is necessary to explicitly separate interface and 
implementation to acheive 1) Type safety, 2) Separate compilation, 
3) Whatever else). :)


Don.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Don Harrison             donh@syd.csa.com.au