Re: Sugestion to Multiple Inheritance

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@bpr.best.vwh.net>]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:55:51 +0000, Brian Rogoff
> <bpr@bpr.best.vwh.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >I prefer the generic approach to the OO approaches.
> >
> >IMHO OOP is not as important as the programming world has made it out to
> >be, and should be used a lot less than it is.
>
> If I substitute ADT for OO, will above remain correct then?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. OO approaches usually
provide some mix of inheritance (though Common List defstruct has
inheritance without OOP I think) and run time polymorphism/dynamic
dispatch. ADTs are an orthogonal feature/capability.

To be specific, I much prefer a language like ML (even SML, which has no
objects) to one like Java. Of course, I'd rather have OCaml (or Ada) which
allows me to have OO features when they are appropriate. I just think that
OO features are not frequently needed or desirable.

You may certainly disagree, as there are still nations which allow that.

-- Brian