> It's true that C++ doesn't have this problem, because it has no super keyword and you must explicitly delegate everything

It's emphatically not "having a super keyword" or not having it. That's a red herring. Visual C++ has __super and yet it doesn't suffer from this: it errors with "ambiguous call to overloaded function" when there are multiple candidates.

There's a lot more I could say about this (frankly the issue I outlined just scratch the surface of a deeper problem in Python), but this is diverting the discussion. Nobody even said C++ is simple or somehow easier to learn than Python in the first place; I was just pointing out an insidious issue in Python, and frankly, it could've been done better without any need to emulate C++'s approach at all. (Exercise for the reader: suggest improvements.)

> It's emphatically not "having a super keyword" or not having it. That's a red herring. Visual C++ has __super and yet it doesn't suffer from this: it errors with "ambiguous call to overloaded function" when there are multiple candidates

What's your point about this nonstandard extension? My point is that C++ doesn't have the problem of classes not written to be part of a multiple inheritance hierarchy delegating somewhere unexpected because, by design, it doesn't attempt to solve the same problems that Python is. If anything that this nonstandard extension doesn't work in multiple inheritance is agreeing with the points I'm making.

> There's a lot more I could say about this (frankly the issue I outlined just scratch the surface of a deeper problem in Python), but this is diverting the discussion. Nobody even said C++ is simple or somehow easier to learn than Python in the first place; I was just pointing out an insidious issue in Python,

You were the one who brought up C++! (EDIT: this was in a cousin comment.) My point is that different languages navigate this thorny landscape in different ways, but the way in which Python does isn't as haphazard as you are suggesting.

> Exercise for the reader: suggest improvements

Perhaps being part of a multiple inheritance hierarchy is sharp and uncommon enough that it should be opt-in. What are yours?

> What's your point about this nonstandard extension?

My point was what I said: you can have your cake and eat it too. You claimed the issue was due to a lack of a super keyword and I showed you it would not occur even if C++ had super.

> You were the one who brought up C++!

I "brought it up" to illustrate it does one particular thing better than Python. Not to claim it does everything better than Python. If you want a simple, beginner-friendly language, avoid C++ like the plague.

> What are yours?

Idk, for starters maybe produce a warning when multiple inheritance occurs and one of the __init__s in the hierarchy doesn't have an obvious call super().__init__.

> My point was what I said: you can have your cake and eat it too. You claimed the issue was due to a lack of a super keyword and I showed you it would not occur even if C++ had super.

I made no such claim. I said (in my opinion) C++ doesn't have the issue you're raising with Python because it has a completely different design that doesn't attempt to solve diamond problems in superclass attribute lookup. Are we not in agreement?

> I "brought it up" to illustrate it does one particular thing better than Python. Not to claim it does everything better than Python. If you want a simple, beginner-friendly language, avoid C++ like the plague.

You can validly think that C++'s choice here is better. I don't think there's a counterargument to personal preference here. My point was that it does not solve all of the problems Python's super builtin is designed to. And that's fine! It avoids the issue in question! I actually don't understand what you are arguing with here. Personally I think the design goals here are just so wildly different that I don't have a preference, but I admit that's kind of a cop-out.

> Idk, for starters maybe produce a warning when multiple inheritance occurs and one of the __init__s in the hierarchy doesn't call super().__init__.

In general I think having more "warning labels" on multiple inheritance is the right idea, if a language is going to persist in offering it at all. I think this would be a good start, especially for a linter.

Ohhh, that makes sense, because any later child will need to know that A and B are C's parents! Okay, thanks!

That, and: I forgot to mention that not using the super builtin can also lead to unintentionally calling a method twice or more for the same base class in a diamond situation (note that with new-style classes, all multiple inheritance has at least one "diamond" class, often object, but people normally do not delegate to object for obvious reasons; you can imagine a base class Z in this example that A and B inherit from instead, if you wish). So, not using the super builtin can result in both delegating to a superclass' implementation too much, and not at all! This is a problem with multiple inheritance that Python actually solves; virtual inheritance doesn't touch it.

Note that `object` being the root of the class hierarchy implies that you must have careful coordination between all classes in a multiple inheritance hierarchy to determine, for a particular method, when subclasses may/must delegate to super, what the arguments to the method are, and even what the argument names are in some cases! You can't just go glomming classes together and expect it to go well unless you know the classes either don't use the same method names or agree very carefully on what the delgatable interfaces are.

Oh, ah yes, that's good. With the A.__init(self) approach you'd overcall in a diamond-pattern. Okay, I'm convinced.