Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!efi!tim
From: tim@efi.com (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Multiple Inheritance -- Is It A Luxury?
Message-ID: <1990Jul5.223746.14690@efi.com>
Date: 5 Jul 90 22:37:46 GMT
References: <15132@reed.UUCP> <268BA8DC.4CD4@intercon.com> <8937@goofy.Apple.COM> <268C032E.5137@intercon.com> <1990Jul2.181147.1672@efi.com> <8967@goofy.Apple.COM> <42616@apple.Apple.COM>
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.
Lines: 24

In article <8967@goofy.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>>Brian Bechtel sums it up very well in saying 
>>"Multiple inheritance is the GOTO of the 1990's."  

In article <42616@apple.Apple.COM> lins@Apple.COM (Chuck Lins) writes:
>But I was a neophyte
>programmer during the 'structured programming revolution'. And all the claims
>of 'object-this' and 'object-that' sound very similar to the 'structured-this'
>and 'structured-that' of the 1970's. Lots of hype and claims that can't be
>substantiated. So I know I'd love to see any empirical evidence that shows
>MI reduces not only new development costs but also the cost of maintenance.
>Please post your references to those journal articles today 'cause I'd love to
>be enlightened.

You would?  Fine, then read my message, and if you can come up with
cleaner solutions to the two problems I described in detail there,
solutions that require neither multiple inheritance nor modification of
object library source code, by all means post your enlightened,
empirical rebuttal.

If you can't come up with good non-MI, non-source-code-changing
solutions, though, then please don't just pretend that the examples
don't exist.  Ignoring counterexamples is definitely not any kind of
empiricism that *I* know of....