.NET+C#: "interface reimplementation = inheritence"

[Jon Davis]

I'm confused. Microsoft calls the reimplementation of an interface
"inheritence". How do they get away with calling this OOP?

Jon

[Jon Davis]

Yes they do call it OOP--or at least "an object-oriented programming
language--all over the place. And no, it couldn't be true OOP because an
interface alone is not an object. Grr.

Jon


"Jonathan Wood" <jwood@softcircuits.com> wrote in message
news:397406d9@news.devx.com...
> Did they call it OOP? It isn't according to the standard definition.
>
> --
> Jonathan Wood
> SoftCircuits Programming
> http://www.softcircuits.com
> Jon Davis <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3973f63c@news.devx.com...
> > I'm confused. Microsoft calls the reimplementation of an interface
> > "inheritence". How do they get away with calling this OOP?
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
>
>

[Jonathan Wood]

Did they call it OOP? It isn't according to the standard definition.

--
Jonathan Wood
SoftCircuits Programming
http://www.softcircuits.com
Jon Davis <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3973f63c@news.devx.com...
> I'm confused. Microsoft calls the reimplementation of an interface
> "inheritence". How do they get away with calling this OOP?
>
> Jon
>
>

[Great ...]

Great !!
Here we go on the OOP wagon again...




"Jon Davis" <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Yes they do call it OOP--or at least "an object-oriented programming
>language--all over the place. And no, it couldn't be true OOP because an
>interface alone is not an object. Grr.
>
>Jon
>
>
>"Jonathan Wood" <jwood@softcircuits.com> wrote in message
>news:397406d9@news.devx.com...
>> Did they call it OOP? It isn't according to the standard definition.
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Wood
>> SoftCircuits Programming
>> http://www.softcircuits.com
>> Jon Davis <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3973f63c@news.devx.com...
>> > I'm confused. Microsoft calls the reimplementation of an interface
>> > "inheritence". How do they get away with calling this OOP?
>> >
>> > Jon
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Jon Davis]

Never underestimate the power of true inheritence.

Jon


"Great ..." <somewhere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3974240b$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Great !!
> Here we go on the OOP wagon again...
>
>
>
>
> "Jon Davis" <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Yes they do call it OOP--or at least "an object-oriented programming
> >language--all over the place. And no, it couldn't be true OOP because an
> >interface alone is not an object. Grr.
> >
> >Jon
> >
> >
> >"Jonathan Wood" <jwood@softcircuits.com> wrote in message
> >news:397406d9@news.devx.com...
> >> Did they call it OOP? It isn't according to the standard definition.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jonathan Wood
> >> SoftCircuits Programming
> >> http://www.softcircuits.com
> >> Jon Davis <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3973f63c@news.devx.com...
> >> > I'm confused. Microsoft calls the reimplementation of an interface
> >> > "inheritence". How do they get away with calling this OOP?
> >> >
> >> > Jon
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Jon Davis]

(that was supposed to be heard in a Darth Vador voice)

"Jon Davis" <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39742ee6$1@news.devx.com...
> Never underestimate the power of true inheritence.
>
> Jon
>
>
> "Great ..." <somewhere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3974240b$1@news.devx.com...
> >
> > Great !!
> > Here we go on the OOP wagon again...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jon Davis" <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Yes they do call it OOP--or at least "an object-oriented programming
> > >language--all over the place. And no, it couldn't be true OOP because
an
> > >interface alone is not an object. Grr.
> > >
> > >Jon
> > >
> > >
> > >"Jonathan Wood" <jwood@softcircuits.com> wrote in message
> > >news:397406d9@news.devx.com...
> > >> Did they call it OOP? It isn't according to the standard definition.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Jonathan Wood
> > >> SoftCircuits Programming
> > >> http://www.softcircuits.com
> > >> Jon Davis <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:3973f63c@news.devx.com...
> > >> > I'm confused. Microsoft calls the reimplementation of an interface
> > >> > "inheritence". How do they get away with calling this OOP?
> > >> >
> > >> > Jon
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[Jay Glynn]

Interface reimplementation is only 1 way that VB.net and C#.net can inherit.
There is also full object inheritence as well. You can even inherit across
languages. VB and C#.net are both truly object oriented, they meat all of
the requirements by most anyone's definition.


"Jon Davis" <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm confused. Microsoft calls the reimplementation of an interface
>"inheritence". How do they get away with calling this OOP?
>
>Jon
>
>

According to a C# book given to PDC attendees (can't remember the title), C#
does support full SINGLE inheritance. However, much like Java, you can
achieve pseudo-multi-inheritance via implementing multiple interfaces. In
this way, MS describes C# to be polymorphic. I have not seen any references
to Interface Implmentation as "inheritance".

Trey

"Jon Davis" <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3973f63c@news.devx.com...
> I'm confused. Microsoft calls the reimplementation of an interface
> "inheritence". How do they get away with calling this OOP?
>
> Jon
>
>

[Matthew Cromer]

<_> wrote:
>According to a C# book given to PDC attendees (can't remember the title),
C#
>does support full SINGLE inheritance. However, much like Java, you can
>achieve pseudo-multi-inheritance via implementing multiple interfaces. In
>this way, MS describes C# to be polymorphic. I have not seen any references
>to Interface Implmentation as "inheritance"

Can you implement the interface of a class in Java? In .NET? With VB5,6
you can implement the interface of a (VB) class and pretend to be the class.

If Java and .NET don't let you do this, it is actually a strike against them
in the OO area, IMHO, vis a vis VB5,6 today.

Matthew Cromer

[Matthew Cromer]

"Jon Davis" <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote:
>The popular def I've heard is OOP=inheritance+abstraction+polymorphism but
>interface reimplementation is NOT inheritence! Microsoft has distorted
the
>definition of it. COM has never, ever been able to support true
>inheritence, and the fact that all of C#'s libraries are shared across the
>..NET platform via COM, C# is therefore not a true OOP language.
>
>Jon

Jon,

.NET is not COM. It is a reworking of VJ++. At least the programmers guides
I have read sure make it look that way.


I think the COM+ 2.0 moniker is frankly a lie and a smokescreen for the obsoleting
of COM.

Matthew Cromer

[Jon Davis]

The popular def I've heard is OOP=inheritance+abstraction+polymorphism but
interface reimplementation is NOT inheritence! Microsoft has distorted the
definition of it. COM has never, ever been able to support true
inheritence, and the fact that all of C#'s libraries are shared across the
..NET platform via COM, C# is therefore not a true OOP language.

Jon



"Jay Glynn" <jay_glynn@agla.com> wrote in message
news:3974540c$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Interface reimplementation is only 1 way that VB.net and C#.net can
inherit.
> There is also full object inheritence as well. You can even inherit across
> languages. VB and C#.net are both truly object oriented, they meat all of
> the requirements by most anyone's definition.
>
>
> "Jon Davis" <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I'm confused. Microsoft calls the reimplementation of an interface
> >"inheritence". How do they get away with calling this OOP?
> >
> >Jon
> >
> >
>

[Jon Davis]

You are mistaken. The reason why I know this is because .NET supports all
languages. This features comes at the sacrifice of true inheritence because
only interfaces can be supported across a zillion languages. In order to
maintain compatibility with existing software, COM is the only way to make
this happen.

Don't forget that COM is not any one single technology, but rather it is
more appropriately viewed as Microsoft's entire suite of object technologies
on Windows. MTS is part of the COM strategy, for example, and .NET will now
be, too.

Jon


"Matthew Cromer" <matthew@sdaconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:3974a74b$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Jon,
>
> NET is not COM. It is a reworking of VJ++. At least the programmers
guides
> I have read sure make it look that way.
>
>
> I think the COM+ 2.0 moniker is frankly a lie and a smokescreen for the
obsoleting
> of COM.
>
> Matthew Cromer

[Matthew Cromer]

"Jon Davis" <jond_123@REMOVE.ME.yahoo.com> wrote:
>You are mistaken. The reason why I know this is because .NET supports all
>languages. This features comes at the sacrifice of true inheritence because
>only interfaces can be supported across a zillion languages. In order to
>maintain compatibility with existing software, COM is the only way to make
>this happen.

There is no compatibility with existing software. Have you not been reading
this group? Compatibility with VB is kaput. Compatibility with C#--well
c# is new! Compatibility with C++? Yes, I imagine they will keep the old
C++ compiler in there to be compatible with itself.

.NET is all new stuff. If you look at the detailed design specs, it looks
very much like Java. Or rather like an extension of Java to support multiple
languages. IE heirarchical string names but no GUIDS, the code runs on a
Virtual Machine, the code gets compiled to bytecode, the bytecode gets validated,
the WinForms package looks suspiciously like Java GUI code, etc. etc. etc.
In fact, knowing the VJ++ team has been working on "something" for the
last year or two, it seems brilliantly obvious that .NET is what they have
been working on.


>
>Don't forget that COM is not any one single technology, but rather it is
>more appropriately viewed as Microsoft's entire suite of object technologies
>on Windows. MTS is part of the COM strategy, for example, and .NET will
now
>be, too.
>
>Jon
>

MTS is a recognizable hack of COM. .NET is in no way or shape a recognizable
variant of COM. Unless you redefine COM like you have above.

If you decide after the fact that COM means, by definition, anything that
Microsoft puts out that has something to do with objects, well sure then
you are right. But COM based on GUIDS, IUnknown, reference counting, etc.
is dead dead dead dead dead.

Matthew Cromer

>
>"Matthew Cromer" <matthew@sdaconsulting.com> wrote in message
>news:3974a74b$1@news.devx.com...
>>
>> Jon,
>>
>> NET is not COM. It is a reworking of VJ++. At least the programmers
>guides
>> I have read sure make it look that way.
>>
>>
>> I think the COM+ 2.0 moniker is frankly a lie and a smokescreen for the
>obsoleting
>> of COM.
>>
>> Matthew Cromer
>
>

[Craig Clearman]

Jon,

>.NET platform via COM, C# is therefore not a true OOP language.

Nope. But instead of discussing it here, why don't you mosey over to
the csharp.general newsgroup? As such, I've set followups to that
newgroup.

Ciao, Craig

[Iguana]

<<And no, it couldn't be true OOP because an
interface alone is not an object. Grr.>>

Well, well. If it's not "true OOP", it can't possibly be usable......:-)


Iguana