Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 8, 2014 at 18:41 audit First posts
May 8, 2014 at 18:43
Apr 30, 2014 at 18:47 comment added Tulains Córdova Please tell who says superclasses are bad.
Apr 26, 2014 at 22:14 answer added Doval timeline score: 4
Apr 26, 2014 at 19:59 answer added amon timeline score: 11
Apr 26, 2014 at 19:41 answer added Michael Shaw timeline score: 1
Apr 26, 2014 at 19:40 review Close votes
Apr 29, 2014 at 22:33
Apr 26, 2014 at 19:02 comment added keenthinker It looks like @amon is on the right track, i found this post where it is said that: interfaces are essential for single-inheritance languages like Java and C# because that's the only way in which you can aggregate different behaviors into a single class (which leeds me to the comparison with C++, where interfaces are just classes with pure virtual functions).
Apr 26, 2014 at 18:54 comment added keenthinker No, i meant costly in terms of the compiler has more to do when it handles an abstract class, but this could be probably neglected.
Apr 26, 2014 at 18:48 comment added Aviv Cohn @amon So you're saying that the advantage of interfaces over abstract classes when trying to achieve loose coupling is them not being limited by single inheritance?
Apr 26, 2014 at 18:42 comment added amon Most languages (e.g. Java, C#) that have “interfaces” only support single inheritance. As each class can only have one immediate superclass, (abstract) superclasses are too limited in order for one object to support multiple abstractions. Check out traits (e.g. Scala or Perl's Roles) for a modern alternative which also avoids the “diamond problem” with multiple inheritance.
Apr 26, 2014 at 18:36 history edited Aviv Cohn CC BY-SA 3.0
edited title
Apr 26, 2014 at 18:27 history asked Aviv Cohn CC BY-SA 3.0