Re: [DOTNET] Constructive criticisms of C# and .NET FW

>> > C# CONSTRUCTORS NOT INHERITED
>>
>> > This has to be the single most maddening aspect of C#.
>>

>class Base {
>    public Base() {}
>    public Base(int x) {}
>    public Base(string s) {}
>
>    public void Foo(int x) {}
>    public void Foo(string s) {}
>}
>class Derived : Base {
>    public void Foo(double d) {}
>}
>
>Only the uncommented lines below compile (notice that I can call all three
>Foo overloads with an instance of the Derived class, but I can only call
the
>default ctor):
>
>static void Main(string[] args) {
>    Derived d0 = new Derived();
>//  Derived d1 = new Derived(4);
>//  Derived d2 = new Derived("four");
>    d0.Foo(4);
>    d0.Foo("four");
>    d0.Foo(3.999);
>}
>
>So while the C# team had to implement hide-by-name semantics specially for
>ctors, I still think that it makes sense to only call the ctors on the
class
>you're creating. What does it mean to create via a ctor only in the base
>class? That could easily lead to inconsistency in the derived class.

It should mean call the default empty constructor and then invoke a
specific superclass ctor for the rest of the build process.  What virtual
ctors would allow us to do is create subclasses which did NOT have to
implement tons of ctors just to invoke a superclass ctor.  On numerous
occasions, I've implemented subclasses that didn't need any ctors at all,
but they had to implement several base class ctors so that the classes
could be used polymorphically.  This is a hack...

The other big benefit that inherited ctors would provide is dynamic
behavior for reflection.  Why do we need MethodInfos PropertyInfos and
ConstructorInfo classes to do reflection.  A method is a method is a method
and the tool should support that.  Smalltalk had it right 30+ years ago...

Smalltalk also supported virtual Class (static) methods and inherited class
data (called class instance variables)...