Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.clos
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!news
From: Charles Fiterman <cef@geodesic.com>
Subject: Re: Why is one OO language more productive than another?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ford.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <DDo1zC.4sI@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: Geodesic Systems
References: <40tcq2$10fa@tigger.cc.uic.edu> <41279tINNk9t@bhars12c.bnr.co.uk> <412spj$87s@tigger.cc.uic.edu> <41a52cINNqa7@bhars12c.bnr.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 15:06:48 GMT
Lines: 17
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:37134 comp.lang.eiffel:10500 comp.lang.c++:145035 comp.lang.smalltalk:27451 comp.lang.clos:3433

The issues are
1) Garbage Collection without OO is nonsense and all encapsulation broken.
2) Meta object protocalls without which you can't upgrade your language
   with things like persistent objects and make dependencies.
3) Functional composition.
4) Reflection without which you can't upgrade your language in small
   ways like RPC calls.
5) Clean and readable syntax for both carbon based and program based
   programmers.
6) Partial evaluation to move important tests including type checking
   to compile time when they can be moved. Partial evaluation is the
   king of efficiency builders.
7) A variety of code generation tools such as GUI builders parser generators
   table builders etc.

No language gives all these things but they are the key issues.

