[bitc-dev] Objects in BitC

[Raoul Duke]

hi,

thanks for the note!

> Diamond patterns only arise in multiple inheritance. We have no plans to
> do multiple inheritance in BitC.

i think things like the diamond issue arise whenever you have some
form of mixing-in, not just m.i. if you do not have mixing in then you
might have something like java single inheritance which, to be frank,
sucks -- well, it sucks if there isn't really good support for
delegation (avoiding boilerplate), at least.

> So to answer your question: I think we have alternatives that fill some
> of the gaps, but in general, no, I don't think that we have any grand
> new inventions in the area of objects. What is really happening here is
> that implementing this very relatively simplistic object system proves
> to be much simpler than generalized existential types, and addresses all
> of the use cases that concern us.

i suspect/hope there don't need to be grand new ideas, only that one
has to be careful about what one unleashes ;-). whatever you add to
support objects will, realistically, get used in various ways by
end-developers, and if your system doesn't help guide folks the right
way / restrict folks from the wrong way, i feel it is doing your
language + work to date a big disservice, that it can be a step
backwards in the long run.

$0.02 at best,
sincerely.