Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!rutgers!cmcl2!phri!marob!samperi
From: samperi@marob.MASA.COM (Dominick Samperi)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: C++ and other OOP Langs
Keywords: C++, OOPS
Message-ID: <615@marob.MASA.COM>
Date: 16 Apr 89 17:32:40 GMT
Organization: ESCC  New York City
Lines: 21

In article <2602@ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Geary) writes:
>like to see comparisons of C++ vs. other object oriented languages such as:
>C++ vs. Modula2
>C++ vs. Lisp
>C++ vs. SmallTalk
>C++ vs. Prolog
>C++ vs. Objective C

I've only read about Objective C, and written a few small C++ programs. It
seems to me that there is a significant performance penalty to be paid for
using Objective C (or SmallTalk), due to massager overhead, for example.
C++ is most often criticized for not being sufficiently object oriented.
But I wonder if this is analogous to criticizing C for not having any
I/O facilities defined as part of the language? That is, is it possible
that with a standardized class library (like K. Gorlen's, for example) that
C++ can be made as flexible (i.e., "object oriented", particularly at
runtime) as Objective C?
-- 
Dominick Samperi -- ESCC
samperi@marob.masa.com
uunet!hombre!samperi