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