Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!bu.edu!m2c!umvlsi!dime!connolly
From: connolly@livy.cs.umass.edu (Christopher Connolly)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: asking an object for its type
Message-ID: <27606@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 91 20:48:27 GMT
References: <1991Feb20.232710.7843@ithaca.uucp> <1485@acf5.NYU.EDU> <71037@microsoft.UUCP> <27D57565.2B22@tct.uucp>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: connolly@livy.cs.umass.edu (Christopher Connolly)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 14

In article <27D57565.2B22@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>What they do not realize, however, is that C++ programming does not
>always admit of Smalltalk/Objective C/CLOS/etc. strategy.  Some of
>them eventually get a clue.  Many, however, never give up in trying to
>force the square C++ peg into the round dynamic-type-test hole.

To be fair, many of them *do* get the clue, but they have no choice in
their working environment, short of looking for another job.  One
industrial group that I've been working with, for example, is now
faced with the task of converting a few thousand CLOS functions into
C++...no mean task.  I'm not sure who's actually forcing the peg into
the hole, but in this case it does not seem to be the people writing
the code.  The language decision was made elsewhere, by people who did
not take the technical consequences seriously.  C'est la vie.