Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
- Subject: Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
- From: "Erik M. Buck" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 22:34:06 -0600
- Organization: EMB & Assocites Inc.
The fragile base class problem is very well known. C++ has it in spades.
Do a little research.
COM and SOM were both invented to get around problems with dynamic libraries
used with static languages.
Any change to a C++ class's vtable breaks all prior linkages to the class.
Add a method, move a method's definition in a file, add or remove an
instance variable, and ALL source code linked with the class must be
recompiled. The Be project suffered from this problem.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Johnson" <email@hidden>
To: "Dan Crevier" <email@hidden>; "Cocoa Dev"
<email@hidden>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
>
> * It solves the fragile base class problem. If you try to ship a C++
shared
>
> library that others can use, as soon as you update it, all apps need to
be
>
> relinked since everything is pointer driven. With the message
dispatching
>
> in Objective-C, no such problem exists.
>
>
That9s not true. I think your are mistaking static libraries with dynamic
>
libraries. A good example of shared objects doing what you say they cannot
>
is plugins for programs like netscape or explorer.
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.