Why Multiple Inheritance Just Isn't Natural.

MI just isn’t natural. And I don’t mean the Mission Impossible movies. I mean Multiple Inheritance. Although undertaking a mission to get it included in the .Net framework might make it a worthy title. If we take our cues from nature and evolutionary theory, you can make the parallels to the evolution of the .Net framework. Think about it. Giraffes and Lions don’t intermix. So why should our class definitions of Giraffes and Lions? What would we create anyway? Girions? Liraffes? I say again, it’s just not natural. But what about those rare moments in history when it does happen? You know, such as the time when Zues came down from Mount Olympus to create god/human-like offspring? There are those moments, but they are rare. Furthermore, we don’t know if there are failed attempts between Zues and his concubines. We only hear about the successes...such as Hercules…..But what about those failures? We just don’t hear about them.

I digress. It’s a habit of mine. I tend to ramble as I am now doing. Again! Even though, the .Net framework doesn’t support MI and it’s not natural. I want it. I want the ability to create code that makes Herculean efforts look simple. I want to derive from System.Attribute and one of my business objects in order to create a common validator for my method parameters (Hint: This is something else I will be writing about later) without the implementing the dreaded “Containment”. Don’t get me wrong, Containment is good. Containment is nice. I just don’t want it all the time. I know. I know I can implement an interface. But I don’t want this either. It doesn’t give me implementation. I want more. I want MI. How about it Microsoft? Please!

-Mathew Nolton