Curse the .NET designers
-
About the only thing I miss from c/c++ was the mutliple base classes. That was handy at times.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Handy utility app that is always on my machines! Tech Blog Post: Microsoft Live Writer Plug-ins!
Not me. Multiple inheritance was just a painful way of doing things, actually inheritance in general is a painful way of locking in things. Thats why I've read a number of recommendations to program with interfaces instead of inheritance and I agree. Its just easier to modify when you need to change it
-
I need to take a moment to publicly curse the .NET designers for not implementing the "friend" keyword in C# as it is in C++. For the third time in a week, the lack of this has prevented me from making what would be an elegant implementation of some classes.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
not implementing the "friend" keyword in C# as it is in C++
Even better would have been Eiffel-style "selective export" - more fine-grained than C++ friend. I've not seen this copied in any of the mainstream languages, e.g., see An Improvement on the Access Control Features of C#[^]
Kevin
-
I need to take a moment to publicly curse the .NET designers for not implementing the "friend" keyword in C# as it is in C++. For the third time in a week, the lack of this has prevented me from making what would be an elegant implementation of some classes.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
And what about not supporting abstract base classes for forms or controls? Just try to bring up your form in the designer and see it puke all over the screen. Way to encourage good OO design there fellas.
-
I need to take a moment to publicly curse the .NET designers for not implementing the "friend" keyword in C# as it is in C++. For the third time in a week, the lack of this has prevented me from making what would be an elegant implementation of some classes.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Just out of interest, how does this compare to the VB.NET 'Friend' scope? (apart from being a different language). Surely it can be done in C# then if it all compiles down to the same?:confused:
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
not implementing the "friend" keyword in C# as it is in C++
Even better would have been Eiffel-style "selective export" - more fine-grained than C++ friend. I've not seen this copied in any of the mainstream languages, e.g., see An Improvement on the Access Control Features of C#[^]
Kevin
I like the solution the authors came up with.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Just out of interest, how does this compare to the VB.NET 'Friend' scope? (apart from being a different language). Surely it can be done in C# then if it all compiles down to the same?:confused:
It's the same thing as internal; it allows visibility to everything within the assembly, but only in that assembly.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
I like the solution the authors came up with.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
I think I stumbled on something similar a while back while investigating a different problem but I can't remember how I did it! :(
Kevin
-
Not me. Multiple inheritance was just a painful way of doing things, actually inheritance in general is a painful way of locking in things. Thats why I've read a number of recommendations to program with interfaces instead of inheritance and I agree. Its just easier to modify when you need to change it
Tim Yen wrote:
Thats why I've read a number of recommendations to program with interfaces instead of inheritance and I agree. Its just easier to modify when you need to change it
How is that? You are still locked in with an Inteface. Multiple Inheritance is the same as interfaces except you do not have to "implement" them every time as with Interfaces.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Handy utility app that is always on my machines! Tech Blog Post: Microsoft Live Writer Plug-ins!
-
Tim Yen wrote:
Thats why I've read a number of recommendations to program with interfaces instead of inheritance and I agree. Its just easier to modify when you need to change it
How is that? You are still locked in with an Inteface. Multiple Inheritance is the same as interfaces except you do not have to "implement" them every time as with Interfaces.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Handy utility app that is always on my machines! Tech Blog Post: Microsoft Live Writer Plug-ins!
You don't have to know what every method does of the parent class(es). You just have to implement the interface. If you don't know what the parent class(es) do then when you modify an existing class structure you may leave in (fail to override) code that will just not work. And that applies all the way up the inheritance tree too. The deeper the inheritance tree the more you have to know if your going to modify the structure. Usually I find just using a class is fine, but modifying a class hierarchy to me requires you understand it on a deeper level. Now maybe this is just an argument against inheritance in general but multiple inheritance just makes it harder and binds things together more tightly. In general I'm moving away from inheritance as it has 1. largely failed to provide code reuse on a big scale, 2. has a habit of hiding implementation details and 3. locks in structure based on assumptions/goals that change and make it hard(er) to modify. The best form of code reuse I have heard of is in components, in particular VB components and they don't use inheritance in that model as far as I know. Though internally the component may.
-
It's the same thing as internal; it allows visibility to everything within the assembly, but only in that assembly.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Thanks! (that makes more sense now!) :-D PS: Any good links on the C++ 'friend' keyword then?
-
bwilhite wrote:
C# is certainly adequate for commercial applications, imo.
Yeah, and that's why the market is flooded with them. The few commercial client applications I have used that are written in .NET run terrible. They remind me of those awful VB apps of old.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
I do all of my client development in C++ and write my servers in C++ or PHP. I've never had a serious performance issue with any of my apps once I finished them.