On 2010-02-08 11:58:53 -0500, retard <[email protected]> said:
Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:03:43 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I think lack of state is indeed the only difference. The multiple
inheritance bit makes all the difference, so I think abstract classes
are not enough. A designer who wants to define some methods in an
interface is forced at design time to choose an abstract class over an
interface, thus severely limiting clients.
I really wonder why you're doing this. NIH. Ever heard or Scala and
traits? I'm sorry, but you didn't invent this feature - giving some kind
of attribution would be honest. I can imagine how this proposal goes
forward. Suddenly D 2 gets almost exactly the same feature (+ contracts)
as Scala has had for a long time and somehow you get all the credit in
the practical (C++/D) PL community.
Hum, where did Andrei claimed he invented this?
To me who knows well Objective-C, this looks like an adaptation to D of
the informal protocol concept, which was then superseded by optional
methods in formal protocols in Objective-C 2.0. This pattern is used a
lot in Objective-C, even though it's implemented differently and is
more powerful due to categories.
Also, I don't know much about SmallTalk, but given SmallTalk was the
inspiration for Objective-C I wouldn't be surprised to see this there
too.
It's nice to give attribution, but where do we stop? Can you say you
know for sure what was the real inspiration for this?
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
