|WikiProject Computer science||(Rated Stub-class)|
||This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010)|
This is an antipattern in the eyes of beholder, year about 2006
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.
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.
Merge with SuperClass
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)