Interfaces
Matthijs van Kempen
Matthijs.van.Kempen at cs.uiuc.edu
Wed Feb 4 23:20:18 UTC 1998
> >How does the notion of interfaces sound?
>
> As opposed to what? I'd rather see full-blown multiple inheritance
> instead of interfaces.
>
> >Interfaces are used in Java and in COM objects. They expose a set of
> >properties (getters/setters) and methods. One component or object can
> >have mutliple interfaces. Interfaces can inheri from each other.
>
> Isn't this where Microsoft likes to encourage us to wander off into the
> weeds with their hype about "interface" vs. "implementation"
> inheritance? As I understand it, once one has "inherited" an interface
> one is then supposed to write a complete implementation of it for each
> class/object/whatever that "inherits" the interface. So what's the
> point? Great, you can define an "interface" that provides a common way
> to provide a service - but if you have to completely reimplement it each
> time you use it what have you really gained?
That's not the case: as I understand you can pass on an interface
without reimplimenting it. You can then implement additional
interfaces/methods.
> As I said, I'd rather see
> multiple inheritance. To me "interfaces" seem to be a poor kludge for
> systems which don't/can't/won't support MI. We know that MI is doable
> in Smalltalk, so it's a matter of "do we want and need this" rather than
> "can we do this". Or perhaps Self-like delegation would be an even more
> general concept. Just my opinions. YMMV.
>
> Bob Jarvis
>
Anyway the real reason I started asking about interfaces is that I
like the notion of components. I wonder if we could do something like
this in Squeak. Because I think some combination of Morphic,
Smalltalk and distributed computing (Corba?) would fly.
Say something?!
There's a new game in Washington.
It's called: swallow the leader.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|