Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!djk@murtoa
From: djk@murtoa (David Keegle)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Current O-O Languages as Software E
Message-ID: <1069@murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au>
Date: 23 Nov 88 14:00:38 GMT
References: <77300017@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@cs.mu.oz.au
Reply-To: djk@murtoa
Lines: 26

From article <77300017@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, by johnson@p.cs.uiuc.edu:
] I said
]>>There should be much, much, much more reuse in software systems.  We don't
]>>keep inventing new abstractions for arithmetic, why should we be doing it
]>>for everything else?  

Hear, hear!

] Dr. James Coggins said
]>Because there is no "implementation" for arithmetic, of course!
]>Computer stuff is bound to implementations requiring engineering
]>decisions concerning tradeoffs of time/space, compilation
]>effort/run-time support effort, etc.
] 
] Note that I said "abstractions" not code.  The abstractions are much
] more important than the code.  If you made a mistake in the implementation
] of a class then you can just write another one.  If you designed the
] interface wrong then you will not only have to reimplement the class
] but every client of the class.  Every language that I have used gives
] the same definition for + on integers.  I want the same thing to be
] true of sets. 

OK, what is ``maxint + maxint'' (your syntax may vary etc.) then? :-) ;-)

			David Keegel	(djk@munnari.oz)
                 "A tautology is something which is tautologous."