Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!hsi!stpstn!cox
From: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Choice of language for manufacturing Applications
Message-ID: <5450@stpstn.UUCP>
Date: 10 Aug 90 13:10:52 GMT
References: <26686@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <56343@microsoft.UUCP> <3228@osc.COM>
Reply-To: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Organization: Stepstone
Lines: 18

In article <3228@osc.COM> tma@osc.UUCP (Tim Atkins) writes:
>I personally believe that C++ would be a more robust language if it included 
>this type of late binding as an option.

That's exactly the flaw with C that caused me to develop OOPC and then
Objective-C. 

Dare I suggest that the solution for C++ (and Ada, Cobol, Pascal, etc, 
precisely as I described in my book) might be almost identical to the
solution we used with C? I.e. the addition of a separate binding possibility,
messaging to anonymous objects, *in addition to* (never replacing) the
diverse binding possibilities already in C++.

Naaah, never mind, forget I said that. Totally unrealistic.
-- 

Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875
The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482