Content deleted Content added
→Copyrights and patents: Dissent, but yield |
→Multiple Inheritance in Java: new section |
||
Line 681:
:: Going back to the original statement, nobody has ever shown that a language can be covered by copyrights, and [[Oracle v. Google]] said they couldn't, or at least Java wasn't. Neither 6061520 or RE38104, the two patents brought up in the Oracle trial, seem to be about Java as much as ways to implement Java. If we want to make the claim under question, we should speak with specificity and with cites. (And we should avoid saying anything about Oracle's "intellectual rights" over Java. That's not a clear term. We should speak specifically of copyrights, patents or trademarks, each of which has very different extents and limitations.)--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 17:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:::I do understand your point but I still must disagree here. At any rate, I'm not going to press the issue any further. Perhaps we'll revisit the discussion sometime in the future. For now, at least, we can leave the wording as it is. [[User:Sebastiangarth|Sebastian Garth]] ([[User talk:Sebastiangarth|talk]]) 19:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
== Multiple Inheritance in Java ==
Guys/Gals,
Java does not support multiple inheritance. <---- note that there's a period at the end of that sentence
I call your attention to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_(object-oriented_programming)
Specifically, the fact that that article begins by stating that *implementation* is what is being inherited, NOT TO BE CONFUSED with subtyping:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_(object-oriented_programming)#Inheritance_vs_subtyping
Anyone who understands multiple inheritance and its problem(s) would know quite well that Java does not support multiple inheritance, and the creators of Java were very vocal and open about their reasons for excluding multiple inheritance from the Java language spec.
| |||