Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7503 comp.object:3228 Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!olson From: olson@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Olson) Subject: Re: Type Systems and Dynamic Binding In-Reply-To: amanda@visix.com's message of 17 Apr 91 17:36:51 GMT Message-ID: Lines: 20 Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43 References: <3843@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> <27313:Apr1623:30:0391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr16.183750@ece.arizona.edu> <1991Apr17.173651.23103@visix.com> Distribution: world,local Date: 17 Apr 91 20:33:21 In article <1991Apr17.173651.23103@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes: Now, you can argue that the C language does not *include* dynamic typing. I don't think anyone here would disagree with you there. However, you can certainly *implement* dynamic typing in C, with as low an overhead as you can get in any other language. No question that you can implement user-defined dynamic typing (or object-oriented programming - I see this thread is cross-posted) on top of a language such a C. But what do you mean by "overhead"? Often there will low machine overhead - but programmer overhead might be a different story. Which one is more important will vary drastically between different applications. -- Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com - Steve Olson MIT Lincoln Laboratory olson@juliet.ll.mit.edu