On Wednesday, 5 June 2013 at 22:50:27 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On 2013-06-06, 00:32, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
But I want to clearify this #1:
class A { virtual void foo(); }
class B : A { virtual void foo(); }
With C# semantics (as has been suggested as a basis):
class A {
virtual void foo() {
writeln("A.foo");
}
}
class B : A {
virtual void foo() {
writeln("B.foo");
}
}
void bar() {
B b = new B();
A a = b;
a.foo(); // Prints "A.foo"
b.foo(); // Prints "B.foo"
}
If that is true, it is fair to assume that C# designer's
completely miss the point of OOP.
On the same path, in the previously linked document : Every time
you say virtual in an API, you are creating a call back hook.
Which seems that OOP is limited to the observer pattern according
to Anders Hejlsberg.
Finally since then, tooling have been introduced in C# to
revirtualize everything. This is possible in C# because of the
VM, but won't be possible in D.
The whole case about C# isn't very strong IMO.