From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer science (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Relation to Mixin?[edit]

What is the relation to or the distinction from the Mixin pattern? 16:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an antipattern in the eyes of beholder, year about 2006[edit]

There was a fashion for a while to replace inheritance with composition. There was some obscure argument in favor of it; but it was, I believe, just one of the fashions in Java. Those days are long gone; Java is not the brightest example of software development technolgy, and, since this article only barely mentions Java, while it is only specific to Java, I would suggest to just throw out this article. It is just an opinion (in my opinion); and now that Mixin pattern is pretty popular and available in many languages (not in Java), these Java troubles are rather obsolete. The world has moved on since; we should too.

Vlad Patryshev (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of this use of inheritance is not specific to Java. Scott Meyers discusses it at length in his C++ books. Authors of the book C++ FAQs do as well. Both feel it should be avoided if possible.

A good distinction between a pathological BaseBean (called "inheritance for reuse" in C++) and a viable Mixin would be helpful here. Mkkuhner (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge with SuperClass[edit]

This description is a java specific version of the more general concept of a Base Class, Base class currently redirects to Superclass (computer science), and I believe that the concept of a base class should be added to that article, and the java specialisation as a sub note. --FredThwaites 21:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. As I understand it is not Java specialisation of Base Class. It is a case when Base Class is used in wrong way. So it is some kind of anti-pattern. Utility class should be used (call method from separate class with utility methods) rather than calling method from base class. CoperNick 10:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily a specialisation. It is merely an example. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagree As User:CoperNick says, it is an anti-pattern. But the article could perhaps do with a discussion of how applicable the problem is in other OO languages. PJTraill (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Citation needed. Does anyone else besides yourselves call it an anti-pattern? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Not notable enough. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagree Per User:CoperNick. A pattern (and by extension, an anti-pattern) is not a design component, it's a design solution. Agree that more citation is needed (and I think that Scott Meyers' books have some good thoughts on is-a vs. has-a that could pertain), but that's a different issue -- Sangrolu (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Contentions?[edit]

The NPOV tag refers to a debate here re:neutrality, but there is no mention of what someone considers NPOV. If nobody has any contentions, I will probably remove it. -Sangrolu (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)