On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 10:37 AM Martin Desruisseaux <martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> wrote: > > For > example, a Circle is a sub-class of Ellipse rather than the other way > around, even though this is counterintuitive to the idea that > sub-classes are more complex than their super-classes (an idea > encouraged by the "drawing" interpretation, as more and more properties > are added as we go down in a UML).
Perhaps a tangent, but I don't know why a subclass would be expected to be necessarily more complex than the superclass. Perhaps it depends on what you mean by more complex. E.g a circle has an additional constraint an ellipse does not have. From one point of view, that makes it more complex, not less. UML never proved very useful, and is likely best ignored these days. Is anyone still using it? I haven't encountered it in the wild for almost two decades. It certainly has little to do with how I think about or explain types and objects. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elh...@ibiblio.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
