🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <27C30630.523F@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>Forcing thousands of programmers doing prototypes in other OOPLs to
>>bugger everything around to fit C++'s unique and (from what I can see)
>>less-powerful resolution of virtuals is a far larger ongoing expense to
>>the software industry than a flag or extra keyword.
>
>This statement belies an assumption that all OOPLs are, or should be,
>semantically equivalent.  It ain't so, nor should it be: an approach

Not equivalent, just consistent where other languages with longer 
experience have proven the way to go.  The training and conversion
expense to the industry of C++'s "unique" approach requires explicit
justification, and I don't see it anywhere.

>(OOP) does not a language make.  Smalltalk is a great environment, but
>it's lousy for prototyping C++ programs.

With multiple inheritance and better interoperation with other languages,
it might be better for prototyping a C++ type hierarchy, though.  Except
that you would be managing all the strong typing yourself.  I am on the
fence about Smalltalk as a prototyping tool.  In prototyping I like
terrifyingly powerful tools like LISP/LOOPS (haven't done enough with CLOS)
that let me not only shoot myself in the foot, but microwave myself.


-- 
  Craig Hubley   "...get rid of a man as soon as he thinks himself an expert."
  Craig Hubley & Associates------------------------------------Henry Ford Sr.
  craig@gpu.utcs.Utoronto.CA   UUNET!utai!utgpu!craig   craig@utorgpu.BITNET
  craig@gpu.utcs.toronto.EDU   {allegra,bnr-vpa,decvax}!utcsri!utgpu!craig