programming

let's make a thread about why inheritance is bad.

Because in a perfect uptopia the state would cease all a person's possessions upon their death and distribute them evenly among the people.

Inheritance is bad because it makes the programmer lazy.
It's the kind of thing an Indian would do to cut corners.
Good programmers don't use it and instead type all the fields and functions in the child class a second time.

But I'd actually like to have structure inheritance in C.

Can you solve this multiple inheritance puzzle?

Two words: type inference.

>>4
Just put the parent structure at the top of the child structure and cast.

One word: the forced indentation of code. Thread over.

>>7
upboat this post

method & field namespace pollution

how am i supposed to scale up dependency injection if i dont have inheritance

>>11
With functional composition.

>>12
literally true.

The general concept is effectively importing libraries at a class scope.

Being able to import only 1 library is ass stupid as fuck. You should be able to pull in whatever functionality into your object class that you want/need.

An object has only 1 identity.

With multiple inheritance, identity gets fucky as inheritance goes more than 1 level deep, diamond of death, etc. This shit just doesn't work to pull in class-level behavior tied to object identity.

Giving each library import its own field in your object makes the most sense. If upstream libs need to share state for whatever ass-backwards reason, they can use singletons.

"Objects" in programming languages have nothing to do with real-life objects. All this inheritance shit is just an ivory tower wank fantasy from academia trying to spin that tale. All it does is make programmers' lives miserable, as PHB fucktards and shitheaded ego coders praise its false claims of organization.

>>6
Ruby Rockstar detected.