I haven't encountered diamond inheritance a single time in 10 years of writing/reading C++, so I definitely don't have nightmares about it. Maybe that was really a thing in the 90s or 2000s?
I have been programming professionally in c++ for 20 years. I remember once thinking "cool, I could use virtual inheritance here". I ended up not needing it.
MI is not an issue in c++, and if it were the solution would be virtual inheritance.
Exactly. Unlike Java where every object inherits from Ojbect, in C++ multiply inheriting from objects with a common base class is rare.
Some older C++ frameworks give all their objects a common base class. If that inheritance isn't virtual, developers may not be able to multiply inherit objects from that framework. That's fine, one can still inherit from classes outside the framework to "mix in" or add capabilities.
I've never understood the diamond pattern fear-mongering. It's just a rarely-encountered issue to keep in mind and handle appropriately.
> in C++ multiply inheriting from objects with a common base class is rare.
One example is COM (or COM-like frameworks) where every interface inherits from IUnknown. However, there is no diamond problem because COM interfaces are pure abstract base classes and the pure virtual methods in IUnknown are implemented only once in the actual concrete class.
