At 16:29 01/04/01 -0700, Alex Shindich wrote: >I do not want to restart the whole discussion on the difference between >base classes and interfaces, but I am of the opinion that they both >represent an is-a relationship. Almost... base classes represent an "is-a" relationship. Interface implementation represent an "work-as" relatioship (if there is anything like this :-). >Arguably, this behavior is already available through runtime method >binding. That's right. I was just saying that I prefer it to stay this way. >This makes interfaces to be as good as doc strings... In a sense, yes. In a dynamic typed language almost nothing is enforced; there's the language syntax and nothing else. The documentation is the last resort. Readability also helps a lot. If the interface support makes for more readable code, then I'm all for it, if just for this reason. Carlos Ribeiro
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4