From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: jtv2j@cobra.cs.virginia.edu (John Viega) Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/09/10 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271341000 References: <340F20A0.49B5@ac3i.dseg.ti.com> <340F39E3.4B71@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Virginia Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article kennel@nospam.lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel (Remove 'NOSPAM' to reply)) writes: > I agree. > > If few Eiffel programmers consider introducing an abstract parent class for > every one of their concrete classes, perhaps this is an indication that such > a thing is not generally needed or wanted --- merely for the purpose of > forcing a separate spec from every implementation? Ada might have other > needs or uses for it. > > I suspect that Eiffel programmers have little reluctance introducing > abstract classes when they make sense as specification. Don't consider what I have to say hard evidence, but from what I have seen in C++ programmers, they are less likely to seperate interface from implementation by useing purely abstract classes than say a Java programmer, because it just never occurs to most of them to do so. Many such people consider themselves to be excellent OO designers, too. I have seen such people write in Java, appreciate the explicit interface construct, use it extensively, and then go back to their same old habits when they return to C++. >From what I've seen, even Java programmers rarely have an interface that maps to every concrete class they write.