From: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)
Subject: Re: Multiple Inheritance -- the last post?
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:47:01 GMT

In article <9208191557.AA09135@efftoo.boeing.com> crispen@efftoo.boeing.com (crispen) writes:
>It's now been two weeks since I asked people who had actually used
>multiple inheritance on a non-toy-sized project to respond.  The only
>mail I got was from someone else who suspected as I did that MI
>is a trendy, academic, dangerous solution vainly in search of a problem,
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and certainly not a requirement for working engineers using any future
>version of Ada.
>

<dons flame-resistant suit>

I think I want to take exception to your string of belligerent adjectives.
As a longtime member of a unversity faculty, I work very hard to build
bridges to my industry colleagues. I am not a particular fan of MI, so
I have no special ax to grind except that of openmindedness and the
willingness to explore things coming from both academia and industry
without tarring them with epithets. 

It's time for a little bridge building in the otrher direction - high time, 
in my opinion. I am getting rather bored with hearing the word "academic" 
thrown around with the derision that conservatives reserve for the word 
"liberal."

I am a fan of Ada and tolerate C++, Smalltalk, Eiffel, and the other OO
things. Let us not forget that C++ is a creature of Bell Labs and Smalltalk 
a creature of Xerox. These folks may be researchers, but labeling them
as "academic" is reaching a bit far. Maybe they don't work for the
defense industry as you do, but they and their adherents are making
their contribution to society just as you are. Somehow I get the
impression - from my (many) visits to and discussions with industry -
that folks in the defense industry think their work is the only work
worth doing or mentioning. Anything that doesn't measure up to their
immediate needs is trashed as "academic." That's BS, my friend. There's
a big world out there.

I am acquainted with a certain person in the Ada industry whose title
used to be "director of education." He ended up changing his title
(I forget the new one), because his industry clients kept telling him
"we don't need education; we need TRAINING." Is this what we've become?
Dealing with each other in soundbites? Let's not bring ourselves down
to the level of the gutter politicians we're seeing too much of this
year. Cut the crap, and let's get on with understanding each others'
views, OK? 

If you don't see an immediate application for MI, you may well be right 
that MI is still a solution in search of a problem. So what? Science and
technology have been filled with things whose applications come to
light long after they were trashed by impatient, narrowminded people.

<doffs flame suit>

Now that I've added my own belligerency, let's back off, shake hands,
and get on with the bridgebuilding business.

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman
co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee

Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
School of Engineering and Applied Science
The George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
(202) 994-5253 (voice)
(202) 994-5296 (fax)
mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)

"Americans wants the fruits of patience -- and they want them now."
------------------------------------------------------------------------