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!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mel.aone.net.au!inferno.mpx.com.au!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh
From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: Why is one OO language more productive than another?
Message-ID: <9524404.29577@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU (CS-Usenet)
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
References: <40tcq2$10fa@tigger.cc.uic.edu> <41279tINNk9t@bhars12c.bnr.co.uk> <412spj$87s@tigger.cc.uic.edu> <41a52cINNqa7@bhars12c.bnr.co.uk> <DDo1zC.4sI@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 18:07:08 GMT
Lines: 17
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:37871 comp.lang.eiffel:10728 comp.lang.c++:147317 comp.lang.smalltalk:27933 comp.lang.clos:3466

Charles Fiterman <cef@geodesic.com> writes:

>The issues are
>1) Garbage Collection without OO is nonsense and all encapsulation broken.

Huh?  I don't know what you're talking about here.  I think lisp
systems have been using GC since long before OO was around.  I don't
think GC causes problems with encapsulation - on the contrary, lack of
GC can cause problems with encapsulation.

Did you mean to speak of OO without GC, rather than GC without OO?

-- 
Fergus Henderson             |  #define x t=a[i],a[i]=a[m],a[m]=t
                             |  char a[]=" 12345678";main(m,i,j,t){for(i=m;i<
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au              |  9;x,i++)for(x,j=m;--j?(t=a[m-j]-a[m])-j&&t+j:
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh  |  main(m+1)*0;);m-9||puts(a+1);} /* 8 queens */
