Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: NIH class libraries for Turbo C++
Message-ID: <59300@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 26 Nov 90 18:31:38 GMT
References: <14440@accuvax.nwu.edu> <15150004@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 19

In article <15150004@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> muyanja@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (bill muyanja) writes:
>Frankly, I'm starting to wonder about the benefits of the unlimited
>linear address space of Un*x, which allow humongous, monolithic software
>modules, both in classic and OO "c".  I have yet to see a piece of software
>in the Unix world with the price/performance/utility point provided by
>Lotus 123 2.01/WordPerfect 4.2/dBase III+ on a 12 MHz AT-clone circa 1987.
>This combo is what appealed to those 40 million DOS users.

Having used both Unix-style huge linear addresses, and Intel 80x86 segments,
I believe neither has much in common with OOP.  In either one has to copy
objects around, or do manual clustering of objects via heuristics, etc.  
Maybe one needs hardware based on an obid+offset, with automatic support of
clustering?

The "huge linear address" of Unix-style machines is a farce in the 
first place, given that that "huge linear address" is built of 4K typical
pages, which are mapped in unique ways to disks, and programmers have
to reverse engineer all these aspects to get good performance in serious
applications.