[chao-]

I haven't written C++ with any significance in a few years, and done little with Rust at all. So while I don't feel qualified to speak to the comparison at the core of the blog post, I did find the first example to be disingenuous. It rests entirely on assuming the C++ programmer will rely on inheritance to achieve polymorphism, simply because they can?

Additionally, the C++ example doesn't produce the same output ("Value: (x: 7)" and "Value: (x: 5, y: 10)"). The addition of that goal might lead the programmer to treat the C++ version of print_me as something more abstract, accepting a string and having class Foo and class Bar simply return their own string representations.

I acknowledge that the premise was "a beginner C++ developer", getting hyped up about inheritance and using it as the only tool in their toolbelt, but how many people are learning C++ as a first language these days? It used to be the norm, back in the OO-will-save-us-all heydey, but has anyone run into it lately?

[bluejekyll]

Don't forget about how awesome C++'s multiple inheritance is! <sarcasm/>

edit: It's worth the down votes on this. Multiple inheritance is pure evil and confusion. In fact, even in Java I now rely on aggregation over inheritance.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/269496/inheritance-vs-agg...

[mercurial]

Unfortunately, in some languages, inheritance of abstract classes is the only way to get the equivalent of interfaces.

That said, yeah, the less class inheritance, the better. Ideally, work in a language where interfaces can include default implementations.

[bluejekyll]

Totally, no problem with default implementations as long as they are generic. Java finally supports this, as well as Rust and others.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

c++ is a great language but a lot of the inheritance system is regrettable at best.