From: Sam Griffith <staypufd@...>
Date: 2002-10-17T14:06:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Interfaces in Ruby

Weak typing allows the code to work on any object though.  In Eiffel, the
code you mixin, must then be generic enough to not have type conflicts with
the code in the object being mixed into... Right?  In Java, there was no
safe way to allow that to happen.  Java interfaces are kind of like
glorified type specifies that you mix in and that the compiler enforces.

Thanks,

Sam


On 10/16/2002 10:46 PM, in article 1034826513.31505.29.camel@traken, "Jim
Weirich" <jweirich@one.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 22:05, Sam Griffith wrote:
> 
>> The fact that you can inherit default implementations is also something that
>> makes Ruby's mixin's more powerful than Java's interfaces.  And it is also a
>> point for weak typing.  The reason you can't have Java interfaces provide
>> default implementations is the strong typing.
> 
> The reason you can't have Java interfaces provide implementation has
> less to do with strong typing and more to do with Java's disdain for
> multiple inheritance.  I mix-in implementation in Eiffel all the time,
> and Eiffel is more strongly typed than Java.