Path: utzoo!censor!geac!jtsv16!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!polyslo!ttwang
From: ttwang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Thomas Wang)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Understanding the Object-Oriented Life-Cycle
Message-ID: <1989Nov10.180245.27510@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 10 Nov 89 18:02:45 GMT
References: <5026@internal.Apple.COM> <315@shrike.AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM>
Reply-To: ttwang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Thomas Wang)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 23

aihaug@AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM (Daniel A Haug) writes:
>In article <5026@internal.Apple.COM>, chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes:

>Having just completed a project with 100+ thousand lines of
>CLOS-based code, yeah I can think of a few places where dynamic
>typing was useful... and a few dozen other things that would
>have made this project VERY hard in C++.

C++ has run-time binding virtual functions, but that is not exactly
run-time binding data objects.  I think run-time binding functions have less
overhead, but force the programmers to make early decisions about how the
function call formats look like.

>On a naive note, does C++ or any other C-based OO extensions support
>different types of method combination?

What is method combination?  I am interested to know.
 
>Internet: haug@austin.lockheed.com

 -Thomas Wang (Ah so desu ka!)

                                                     ttwang@polyslo.calpoly.edu