egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) (03/20/91)
In article <jls.669368669@rutabaga> jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: > P.S. Ted believes the earth is 600 years old. I believe that the Earth is 600 years old. I also believe that the earth is 1,000,000 years old. In fact, I believe that the Earth is about 4 billion years old. 1. Am I to assume that you think the Earth is LESS than 600 years old?? 2. What is an attack like this doing in a technical newsgroup anyway??? Skip Egdorf hwe@lanl.gov
jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) (03/21/91)
>> P.S. Ted believes the earth is 600 years old. >I believe that the Earth is 600 years old. I also believe that the earth is >1,000,000 years old. In fact, I believe that the Earth is about 4 billion >years old. >1. Am I to assume that you think the Earth is LESS than 600 years old?? No, and you know what I meant. Ted believes the earth is ONLY 600 years old. He also believes radiocarbon dating is a plot by God to fool unbelievers, that giant men lived contemporaneously with dinosaurs, etc. >2. What is an attack like this doing in a technical newsgroup anyway??? By believing the earth it only 600 years old, etc etc, Ted demonstrates a phenomenal inability to form opinions based on technical accuracy, facts, or most of the current body of science. This inability to be even reasonably objective about data carries over into many areas, including his grasp of software engineering, the merits of C vs Ada, etc etc etc. That's the point: that any opinion voiced by Ted on just about anything technical needs to be taken with a massive grain of salt. Think of it as a self-inflicted anti-character witness. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."
kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) (03/25/91)
WARNING: sueful content of this message may be zero. 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. -- Regards, Kers 24059 | "You're better off not dreaming of the things to come; Caravan: | Dreams are always ending far too soon."
jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) (03/27/91)
>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--let me rephrase my original post: "Many people I've talked to, as well as myself, view multiple inheritance as a solution in search of a problem". While it is the case that only mere brilliance is required to properly construct a single inheritance tree, it seems to require absolute genius to properly design a multiple inheritance tree. MI reminds me of those features you see on really expensive VCRs that look sexy on the data sheet but confuse the shit out of the average user when he/she tries to read the instructions after getting the unit home. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."
rick@cua.cary.ibm.com (Rick DeNatale) (03/28/91)
In article <jls.670045097@rutabaga> 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?