I guess you'll find the following sentences too poorly written too:

"Java developers all too often associate the term polymorphism with
"an object's ability to magically execute correct method behavior at
"appropriate points in a program. That behavior is usually associated
"with overriding inherited class method implementations. However, a
"careful examination of polymorphism demystifies the magic and reveals
"that polymorphic behavior is best understood in terms of type, rather
"than as dependent on overriding implementation inheritance. That
"understanding allows developers to fully take advantage of
polymorphism.

"...that implementation-oriented view leads to images of wizardry,
"rather than an understanding of fundamental concepts.

"Polymorphism in Java is invariably subtype polymorphism.
"...
"A fundamental understanding of subtype polymorphism requires that
"you make the shift from implementation concerns to thinking in terms
"of type.

These sentences comes from the article linked in the article you
quoted:

http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-04-2001/jw-0413-polymorph_p.html

To me it's all about ADT and I don't see anything wrong with the
sentence that you find poorly worded:

"Multiple interface inheritance still allows an object to inherit
"methods and to behave polymorphically on those methods.
"The inheriting object just doesn't get an implementation free ride.

It's exactly like that and there are many here on c.l.j.p. who could
show you polymorphism at work on an object inheriting from
several interfaces.

You wrote:

It's not that I find your "single inhertience [sic] does that" wrong,
I simply thinks it doesn't make any sense.

I think that polymorphism is not what *you* think.

Bye

I think there is a misunderstanding - I am not touting the opinion of
academics, and likewise, I will fervently defend the "realities of
organizations" as legitimate within the context that we are discussing.

No, Stroustrup and Gosling do not impress me - we have moved on since
then. Like many things, they set an excellent precedent (I am
complementing Gosling here where it is most certainly unwarranted),
being the best of the day, and I concede that Java still fits somewhere
around "the best of the day". That it meets the "realities of
organizations" is exactly the debate that I am engaged in. Simply, if
you accept that the aforementioned (but not elaborated on as you picked
up :)) Axioms of Software aligns with - as you put it - realities of
organizations, then you also accept that Java (including the OO paradigm
as we know it), and many other languages fall *far* short of meeting the
requirement. In fact, I spend most of my development time conceding to,
and working around, the many shortcomings as do others, only I observe
them to attribute these workarounds to something else - sometimes even a
"design pattern"!! How's that for marketing!?

Why is Java successful? Because it is a superior language? I can't help
but view that answer as a mere subscription to the marketing material
that I refer to. Externalise the perception (I admit, I once thought it
as well!), place it under a heavy analysis (use whatever method you
choose - they all derive the same conclusion), and then reconsider your
position.

The crucial parts that I have omitted (and I acknowledge it) are the
hitherto "axioms" and the logical steps to the conclusion. I'd be most
interested in discussing the topic with interested parties, but engaging
on public internet forums has proven fruitless in the past, so please
accept my cowardly decline here.

Java has multiple inheritance until I see a sound proof to the contrary

fact, what is often touted by the Gods can often be used to shortcut
conclusions to hypotheses by method of contradiction. Simply assume what
is said is false, then try to prove it true. By doing so, you often
inadvertantly prove the contrary. This requires much externalisation of
what many (at least i have found) accept faithfully as truth. I also
used this at my previous employer (a large corporation) who also engaged
in portraying illegitimate forms of authority as a premise of truth.
Suffice to say, there are related reasons that I left :)

...

To be honest, this appear under a HUGE heading that clearly
states "Features removed from C and C++"... And the table of contents
shows two authors, not one, so quote what you will if it fits
your view of the world.

Then, to me, it can be read "Multiple inheritance, as done in C++,
was discarded from Java". (remember that it's under a section
called "Features removed from C and C++" before jumping guns)

...

In your implementation-based view of OO...

Moreover this quoting of Bjarne Stroustrup does certainly not imply
that multiple interface inheritance is not multiple inheritance.

"appeal to number".  A common logical fallacy.  What has it to do
with multiple inheritance?

that is blatantly wrong but if it makes you confortable
to think that... I'll leave you the last word (I'll finish this
post, but I won't be participating in this thread anymore).

"appeal to authority" and "appeal to number" once again.  I've
showed that your quoting of "Gosling" (if he really did write
that) was flakey at best, I haven't seen any tangible evidence
from any language creator in what you quoted.

OK, I'll play your game now...

A paragraph here from Bill Veners:

"I presented interfaces primarily as a special kind of multiple
"inheritance: multiple inheritance of interface (the object-oriented
"concept) without multiple inheritance of implementation.

See? See? He's even suggesting that multiple inheritance done
with interface is conceptually more OO than multiple inheritance
inheritance of implementation.

How's that an heresy?

But wait, there's more, he's asking a question to James Gosling
and, contrarly to you, James doesn't jump gun on him saying
that multiple inheritance in Java doesn't exist:

"Bill Venners: In Java you included multiple inheritance of
"interface, but left out multiple inheritance of implementation.
"Were you trying to say anything to designers by making the
"interface a separate construct? Were you trying to say anything
"by leaving out multiple inheritance of implementation? How
"did that come about?
"
"James Gosling: It listened to people from the C++ and
"Objective-C camps, and I tried to sort out who had the most
"happy experiences. The Objective-C notion of a pure interface
"with no implementation seemed to have worked out really well
"for people. It avoids a lot of the sticky issues such as
"disambiguation that people get into in C++.

Impressive no!?, the very first sentence contains both
"multiple inheritance of interface / multiple inheritance
of implementation"... Don't you think multiple interface
inheritance might be MI after all ?

Here's the link:

http://www.artima.com/intv/gosling13.html

I remind you that Gosling also said he regretted that he allowed
to do concrete class subclassing and would have gone "pure
interface" (his words) if he were to design Java again (oh if
only he had done it... Java would be way less crappier than
it is and, more importantly, way less abused).

Oh, and strangely Tony Morris is the author of a testing framework
that has been written without a single occurence of the keyword
abstract and with all classes declared final (no concrete subclassing).
I haven't verified it, but I *know* this is 100% doable, as is
multiple inheritance, in Java.

So now we're waiting for your proof that multiple inheritance
isn't possible in Java. And don't forget to inform Bill Venners,
James Goslings and all the language creators, for it's 2006 and
multiple inheritance of "specification" (as objective-c calls it
if I'm not mistaken) or multiple inheritance of interface is taken
for granted.

And this should change: obviously the world must adapt to
your definition of MI.

Some people in this thread answered "yes and no" to the original
poster (and clearly explained that Java supported MI using
interfaces but not MI using concrete inheritance).
Me and Tony Morris both answered "yes" (and there's more than
two of us as I hope you start to realize).

So far you're the only who answered and defended a "no".

Makes you wonder a tiny, little bit or not even?