Daniel Brockman ha scritto:


> 
>>Perhaps we are using the term "simple" in
>>different manner.
> 
> 
> That would certainly explain a few things.  All else being
> equal, I consider "fewer concepts" to imply "more simple".
> (All else would not be equal in this case, but in my mind
> very little would change.)

The point is that once you introduce MI (which is a simpler concept than 
single-class-inheritance-with-modules-mixed-in) you bring a lot of new 
concepts with it, i.e.

- repeated inheritance
- diamond inheritance
- more complex semantics for "super", both in his class usage and for 
builtin overriding
- how should the mwethod resolution work? Should it have a fixed order 
be user-updateable ? In one case it would be less useful, in the other 
you would need to add another concept
- ..the same for class functions, maybe
- maybe we could add a way to use a rename+select thing like in Eiffel, 
but would it play nicely with ruby's dynamic nature?

and probably some more things.
Mind you, I agree that in a theoretical non-ruby language MI would be 
nice ;)