Exactly, I'm usually stricken with confusion when I see the latest in OO design or features being pushed -- design patterns were sometimes obvious but sometimes overblown -- often just ways of making bad design more politically correct. Ah, yes, it's a Drunk Hippy Inspector Pattern! Or when they cover for feature-creep or inheritance-tree-sprawl (aspect-oriented development). Mixins are just another, when we really have to ask, are we just coding this to thump our chests or is there a simpler, easier, way? Usually there is.
in reply to Re: Implementing a Mixin Class
in thread Implementing a Mixin Class
If it looks like I'm bitter, then yes, I am -- I'm tired of "architects" without a clue as to how to write maintainable code getting paid 3x as much as the folks that actually do real work, and all the time they are making easy things harder to maintain, not easier. I went to school thinking software architecture was the coolest thing ever. Reality has taught me otherwise. The need for new OO-isms (mixins, the need to quote GoF daily, AOD, reflection, etc) are usually a coverup for a basic design flaw somewhere in the program. Keep it simple!