Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
It's a logical conclusion. You provide a map-type collection, call it a HashMap. Then, a UI designer wants to abstract his specific Map-like container that exposes his elements, so you provide him a Map interface. But HashMap implements all the required functions to be able to implement the Map interface, so you slap Map on the back of the class definition, and presto! It implements the map interface. Where's the extra complexity?
The extra complexity is in the container supporting very different ways to do the same thing.
I don't see how that's a bad thing.
If the user wants an interface, he can add one on to the front of the collection. It doesn't need to be in the collection itself.
The "bad" thing is the component integrating in capability that is easily done as an add-on.
This reminds me of a fellow I worked with years ago who would provide both a free-function interface and a class interface to each of his components. It was completely redundant to do both, and added pages of complexity and documentation.
