Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:11953 comp.object:2634 comp.lang.objective-c:184 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!emory!wrdis01!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.object,comp.lang.objective-c Subject: Re: Static typing and OOP efficiency Message-ID: <27CE9CDC.4FD2@tct.uucp> Date: 1 Mar 91 18:26:35 GMT References: <27C523A2.2155@tct.uucp> <66645@brunix.UUCP> Followup-To: comp.lang.c++ Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 17 [ Followups to comp.lang.c++ ] According to sdm@cs.brown.edu (Scott Meyers): >Based purely on a seat-of-the-pants feeling, my guess would be that the >dynamic type of a pointer/reference in C++ frequently differs from its >static type, and that most function calls are to virtual functions. My code has innumerable non-virtual member functions, most of which are inherited by derived classes and made public. Virtual functions are relatively rare, but what they lack in numbers they make up for in importance. I suspect that converted C programmers like me tend to non-virtuals by default, while converted Objective C and Smalltalk programmers tend to virtuals by default. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT ,