Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!cuae2!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxo!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Object-Oriented vs. Abstract Data Types
Message-ID: <6565@alice.uUCp>
Date: Wed, 21-Jan-87 18:31:50 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.6565
Posted: Wed Jan 21 18:31:50 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Jan-87 03:46:47 EST
References: <4000001@nucsrl.UUCP> <3288@milano.UUCP> <147@m10ux.UUCP> <672@unc.unc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 10

In article <672@unc.unc.UUCP>, rentsch@unc.UUCP writes:
> Dynamic binding yields considerable advantages over Simula,
> including more polymorphic procedures and incremental compilation.
> (Those of you out there who have used Smalltalk and/or Lisp systems
> know what I'm talking about.)  Basically, the only reason *not* to
> have dynamic binding is the belief that "it costs too much".

Not so.  Another reason to avoid dynamic binding is that doing so
makes it easier to catch certain programming errors early on.
The earlier an error is caught, the less damage it does.