IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Nope, not getting sucked into that time sink again.
Plus pretty much any of his examples can be demolished using a strategy or other compositional pattern. He's always been stuck on a strict anti-inheritance kick.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Speaking of time sink examples ...
I saw this today, and it reminded me of your shapes stories.

Draw a girl in sunglasses using CSS.

https://twitter.com/asyrafhussin4/status/1544623076863664128
--

Drew
New Hoist a glass to Jim Wierich, another departed IWETHEYer
Jim was the curator of those shapes examples, amongst other somewhat larger things (such as, oh, Rake and RubyGems), and probably one of the most famous of our lot with his own Wikipedia page.

His last GitHub commit is a memorial:

https://github.com/jimweirich/wyriki/commit/d28fac7f18aeacb00d8ad3460a0a5a901617c2d4
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Judging from that exchange, his shtick at the time (exactly twenty years ago) was SINGLE inheritance
Like, "The problem with OO is seeing everything as 'is-a' when it should be 'has-a', which tables of attributes can model better" [my paraphrase -- CRC]. He seemed (as usual) deaf to his counterparty's explanations and even (albeit partial) agreement, as when Fowler readily admitted he usually modeled stuff as single-inheritance just because most OO languages can't do multiple.

Fowler's explanation (in asking Bryce for clarification of whether this was what he meant, IIRC) was along the lines of "If you have a class person you could subclass that along (Man|Woman) or (Doctor|Nurse), but then if you implement both divisions and add a method foo() in both sub-classifications, what will DoctorAlice.foo() do? So I usually only subclass along the 'dominant' (=most used in my code) dimension, and add the rest as ('has-a') attributes" [heavily paraphrased, of course -- CRC].

Not that this affected Bryce in the slightest; he kept yacking as if single inheritance was this huge insurmountable obstacle that made all OOP near worthless (and as if Fowler were a staunch proponent of SI). Regardless of all that, though, "Top"Mind (and Fowler!) did have a point [finally filling that in three days after starting this comment]: The naïve proponents of "OOP lets you accurately model the real world in code!" (to whom I must, to my shame, admit I belonged. Or at least pretended to, just to keep whacking on Bryce) were wrong; in a single-inheritance world, it doesn't. And in OOP as it is practiced today -- and largely was back then -- multiple inheritance is a small and shrinking part. For, I hasten to add, good reasons.
--

   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything


Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
     Look what I stumbled across... - (CRConrad) - (4)
         Nope, not getting sucked into that time sink again. - (malraux) - (3)
             Speaking of time sink examples ... - (drook) - (1)
                 Hoist a glass to Jim Wierich, another departed IWETHEYer - (malraux)
             Judging from that exchange, his shtick at the time (exactly twenty years ago) was SINGLE inheritance - (CRConrad)

Excuse me while I go throw up.
129 ms