Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.clos
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!allegra!alice!walid
From: walid@research.att.com (Walid Saba)
Subject: Re: C++ not OOP? (Was: Language Efficiency
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dogmatix.research.att.com
Message-ID: <walid.802464244@research.att.com>
Sender: usenet@research.att.com (netnews <9149-80593> 0112740)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
References: <dewar.797512974@gnat> <MATT.95Jun1104021@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> <3ql7oe$17a@uuneo.neosoft.com> <MATT.95Jun1143338@dogbert.lbl.gov> <3qld3l$3u5@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <19950602T072121Z@naggum.no> <3qtf1m$7qb@news.wwa.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 18:44:04 GMT
Lines: 28
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:32290 comp.lang.c++:132105 comp.lang.ada:30959 comp.lang.clos:3152

"Robert C. Martin" <rmartin@oma.com> writes:

....

>No, the fundemental principles of OOD are well supported by C++. 

Two fundemental principles of OO are not, and could not be
supported by C++ unless the language takes on an intensional
twist:

1) you cant re-define the object's structure and/or behavior
   at run time (many applications would require this)

2) you can not change your class heirarchy at run time.
   (many-many applications would require this!)


Still, C++ has the right trade-off between expressive power
and efficiency. CLOS, for example, supports (1) and (2), and
Smalltalk supports (2), but both are not as effiecient.


Best,

Walid 



