Xref: utzoo comp.object:1550 comp.lang.c++:8828
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!tonyw
From: tonyw@microsoft.UUCP (Tony WILLIAMS)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Choice of language for manufacturing Applications
Message-ID: <56343@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 6 Aug 90 20:54:35 GMT
References: <26686@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: tonyw@microsoft.UUCP (Tony WILLIAMS)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 19

This is just a comment, not a response or rebuttal.

In article <26686@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> lozinski@argon.UUCP (Chris Lozinski) writes:
>
>into final applications.  Technically this is caused by the default
>structures of the objective-C language where the target class of a
>message does not need to be known at compile time.  In contrast the
>default in C++ is that the target class does need to be known at
>compile time.
>

I am not sure what is meant by "default" here, but the last sentence above
seems to be a common misconception.  In C++, it is not necessary to know the
class of the object whose member function is being invoked.  It is necessary
to know the (probably abstract) base class that introduces that member function.
It is required that the class of the object be derived from the known base.
This is not the same as saying the class of the object must be known.

Tony