Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:12329 comp.lang.objective-c:203
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!apple!netcom!rkitts
From: rkitts@netcom.COM (Rick Kitts)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.objective-c
Subject: Re: Static typing, OOP efficiency, and programmer error
Message-ID: <1991Mar19.172652.6290@netcom.COM>
Date: 19 Mar 91 17:26:52 GMT
References: <1861@news.tcs.com> <6648@stpstn.UUCP> <27E1806B.728B@tct.uucp>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 18


There seems to be some lack of "real world" in this conversation. The
contention that Objective-C allows for errors at run time is obviously
correct, however if someone can point out a language which prevents run
time errors I would be very interested to know of it :-).

Before you say, "But C++ can't get an error because it can't find a method!",
please consider that Objective-C can't get an error because it inserted
a copy constructor under your nose which has an incorrect behavior. The
point being that each language (perhaps *every* language, but I don't want
to generalize) has its own domain of problem areas. You can't look at
Objective-C and say it is deficient compared to C++ because of this potential
for error. Because if you do, you have to turn right around and say that
C++ is deficient compared to (just about every other language in the world)
Objective-C because it has the potential to generate an incorrect
copy constructor.

---Rick