Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!mcnc!gatech!prism!hydra.gatech.edu!tynor
From: tynor@hydra.gatech.edu (Steve Tynor)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Static typing, OOP efficiency, and programmer error
Message-ID: <TYNOR.91Mar12095747@hydra.gatech.edu>
Date: 12 Mar 91 14:57:47 GMT
References: <PCG.91Feb19202728@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> <27C523A2.2155@tct.uucp>
	<PCG.91Feb27190941@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> <27CE9C05.4F64@tct.uucp>
	<1861@news.tcs.com> <6648@stpstn.UUCP>
Sender: tynor@prism.gatech.EDU
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute
Lines: 20
In-reply-to: cox@stpstn.UUCP's message of 11 Mar 91 20:51:10 GMT

In article <6648@stpstn.UUCP> cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) writes:
   ...
   No sirree, none of that bad old dynamic assembly-time binding for me. 
   I'm going to settle on fabrication technologies where the parts and the
   whole come into existence simultaneously, to make dynamic (assembly-time) 
   binding errors will be a thing of the past.

   Anyone else want to join me in this perfectly type-safe world?

Strong typing does NOT  imply static binding - It's  possible to be type
safe  AND completely avoid static  binding.  Check out Eiffel.  Heck, it
can even  be  done in C++  if  you're  careful to specify that  all your
methods are 'virtual'.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Language is a virus from outer space" - William S. Burroughs
                     
    Steve Tynor
    Georgia Tech Research Institute
    tynor@prism.gatech.edu