Re: Strategic Functional Migration and Multiple Inheritance


Thank you for letting me know of Anders 'Over my dead body' statement.

I have secretly harbored a suspicion that Java (and lately C#) is inherently
'evil' because there is 'No Multiple Inheritance'. With Anders' statement
above I
now KNOW C# is inherently evil.

......

And if C# IS inherently evil, AND today IS 6/6/6 (666), .... we MUST
consider the
possibility that Anders as actually .... evil incarnate masquerading as a
'being of
light' :-)

All of that great stuff (reflection, events, generics, LINQ) was actually
an EVIL FACADE to force us to live without MULTIPLE INHERITANCE.
(I see it all now !!!).

And since Anders IS such a wonderful and likeable guy (just a clever
masquerade) it all makes sense!

Strange as it may seem I had a dream (nightmare) last night in which
Anders played a flute leading the world's programmers to the 'Gates' of hell.
As I entered the gate turned into a couple of giant legs.

I looked up an there was Bill 'Gates' as the devil (which makes Anders just a
subservient demon) shouting 'No Multiple Inheritance for .NET' and then he
laughed wickedly.

The C# development team all had firery tridents and keep prodding the
incoming programmers
into teeny tiny cubicles. The C# Experts and MVPs walked on walls just above
the cubicles
with whips and threatened code reviews.

And finally I saw Jon Skeet himself sitting on a high platform beating a big
drum saying to each beat..

- No
- Multiple
- Inheritance
- No
- Multiple
- Inheritance
......

Suddenly .. - I woke up in a cold sweat and couldn't get back to sleep
without the light being on.

.......

Interesting how synchronisity and occult insights work on these new age date
kind of things :-)

Thanks for the comment :-)

Shawnk

PS. Of course it could have been the anchovy pizza....

"Radek Cerny" wrote:

I guess all of us MI proponents stopped even dreaming when Anders uttered
those words "MI? Over my dead body!".

I miss MI dearly and would forego any and all other .NET improvments to have
it.

Cheers

"Shawnk" <Shawnk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:81A82AA4-21DC-4248-9774-B7AE4C7962D6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nicholas,

Thank you for your response.

The numbers in points [1] and [2] are completely contrived.

We wanted to articulate the difference between (1) understanding and (2)
use
of II (Implementation Inheritance). We also wanted to establish a metric
level for
change (by evolution, user migration to other languages, user loyalty (as
in
C++)) that would account for the lack of MI (Mulitple Inheritance) in
recent
language offerings (java, C#, D++).

The metrics of 'less than 1%' seemed to be a reasonable way to account for
the apparent 'level of interest' (lack of interest) in MI/SFM among
'expert'
and 'senior' level programmers in the non-C++ programming communities.

As to 'why MI is not supported' - the lack of interest or the response to
this post is an indication that verifies (informally) the 'less than 1%'
water mark. And yes, ... it appears that the II, MI and SFM are not
used/understood/desired in the non-C++ programming communities :-)

We wanted to post this question in several language communities prior to
any
other actions (such as recommendations, etc). Also, making recommendations
would be distracting to an audience/community that has no
interest/understanding/desire of the utility of MI/II/SFM.

Your good point about a recommended design implementation for MI in C++
(in
my mind) is really hinged/connected to Anders position of 'no MI in C#'.
Since all the videos, interviews, etc. (That I have seen) indicate he has
NO
interest in MI/II/SFM it is reasonable to assume that C# will always be a
less expressive (relative to functional orthogonality) and powerful
language
compared to C++.

Note that C# is an excellent language and wonderfully expressive from a
productivity standpoint (type safety, etc). Its current contribution via
LINQ
is excellent as its historic introspective (reflection) and binding
(delegates,events) mechanisms. As a mechanism for automated pattern
detection
and refactoring it fails (IMHO) because of the importance of functionally
orthogonal mechanisms (such as MI/II/SFM, etc).

The lack of use of .NET in the Microsoft Vista implementation is something
of interest (to the MI/II/SFM issues) that we will pursue (as opposed to
C#
recommendations) to get a feel for MI/II/SFM issues in various programming
communities.

Thanks again for your input.

Shawnk

PS. The lack of MI/II/SFM in .NET is a basic, serious and fundamental flaw
(IMHO) of the 'operating system' (as in .NET) itself. This, of course,
hinges
on the validity of point [3] which is the basis for Ander's position on MI
in
C#.


"Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" wrote:

I would be interested in knowing how you came to the numbers that you
have in points 1 and 2.

While I agree that implementation inheritance would be useful, if the
numbers that you claim are anywhere near correct, you have already
answered
why MI is not supported in modern languages (meaning most .NET languages,
Java).

In all of this, I didn't see a recommendation on how such
functionality
might be included in C# (proposed language syntax, rules, etc, etc). Why
not show something of that nature?


--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Shawnk" <Shawnk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:37B632C2-66E7-433A-A449-27FA734BB33D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Some Sr. colleges and I have had an on going discussion relative to
when
and
if
C# will ever support 'true' multiple inheritance.

Relevant to this, I wanted to query the C# community (the 'target'
programming
community herein) to get some community input and verify (or not) the
following
two statements.

[1] Few programmers (3 to7%) UNDERSTAND 'Strategic Functional Migration
(SFM)' (see PS below).

[2] Of those few, even less (another 3 to 7%) are GOOD at Strategic
Functional Migration (or 0.9% to 0.49%).

Do these percentages seem about right? (less than 1% of the target
programming
community are GOOD at SFM)

Thanks ahead of time for any relevant QUALITY input.

Shawnk

PS.

Strategic Functional Migration (SFM) is described in the post following
this
one.

PPS. I submit to my fellow colleges that the answer (point spread)
determines

[A] Short term mitosis of the few to pioneer a new language
incorporating
C#
productivity with C++ (SFM) powers

[B] Long term community evolution and industry migration away from C#
as a
'core competency' solution (subtle point)

Both A/B, in turn, instantiate the 'early adopter' model in the
compiler
market.

PPPS.

I have a 'core competency' project I want to do that would be a lot
easier
if I
could use SFM with C#.






.