Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!nowhere!rick From: rick@cua.cary.ibm.com (Rick DeNatale) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Personal attacks regarding ada-c++ productivity Message-ID: <1991Mar27.180327.523@cua.cary.ibm.com> Date: 27 Mar 91 18:03:27 GMT References: <1991Mar15.22 Reply-To: rick@cua.cary.ibm.com.UUCP (Rick DeNatale) Distribution: usa Organization: cua Lines: 21 In article jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: >>Jim Showalter says: > >> I think multiple inheritance is a solution in search of a problem. > >>Jim, like Jesus, presumably had but the one biological parent. > >Believe it or not, I got a big laugh out of this! I agree that in >biology multiple inheritance seems to be the law of the land. But >in software the picture has been less clear- I too get a big laugh out of comparing biological inheritance to OO inheritance as it is found in most (all?) OOPLs. If we inherited the way C++ objects (frinstance) do, we would all look like the concatenation of our mother and father, rather than a combination of a subset of their (hopefully) best traits, along with some of our own. Considering how many generations the human race has gone through, if bio MI worked like this imagine how tall (or wide) we'd be today! Rick DeNatale *Of course my opinion is my own, who else would want it?