is Missing multiple inheritance in sqeak a drawback ?

Alex Peake apeake at comac.com
Fri Oct 11 20:14:22 UTC 2002


There is one aspect of MI that I find quite practical, from a productivity and a manageability
perspective, and that is Mixins (as in CLOS, PLT Scheme, ..).

This allows localization of specializations, with complete sharing, excellent manageability and no
need to build "wrapper" functions (as with Has-A).

Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org]On Behalf Of Hans
> Beck
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 11:32 AM
> To: Squeak-Dev
> Subject: is Missing multiple inheritance in sqeak a drawback ?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using squeak for prototyping our LCD measurement system software.
>  From time to time, some colleagues look at my display and are
> astonished ;-)) But they are c++ freaks, and if we discuss about the
> usability  of squeak for prototyping, always there comes the argument of
> lacking multiple inheritance.
>
> So because I'm not a theoretican for computer languages but  I suppose
> there are a lot very good guys on this list, I would ask the community,
> how far multiple inheritance is really needed, or is it bad or what ever
> ? (Looking from a more or less theoretical viewpoint of object oriented
> concepts ) ?
>
> Thanks for help finding arguments :-))
>
> Greetings
>
> Hans
>
>
>





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list