Re: A Change In Terminology: Monomorphic Objects. Polymorphic Objects
Dave Harris wrote:
Some people use the term "object-based" for code which uses abstract data
types without dynamic polymorphism. I don't like the term myself but it is
out there. For example, from:
http://www.cacs.louisiana.edu/~mgr/404/burks/pcinfo/progdocs/oofaq/s1f.htm
1.15) What Is The Difference Between Object-Based And Object-Oriented?
Object-Based Programming usually refers to objects without
inheritance [Cardelli 85] and hence without polymorphism, as in
'83 Ada and Modula-2.
There is also an entry on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based
Thanks for the link. I imagine walking down the street and asking
someone who plants trees for a living, has never programmed a computer,
and has English as his first language, "What do you think is the
difference between object-based and objected-oriented?"
I imagine asking 1000 such people that, and gathering the answers.
That the terms are so similar, IMO, is a form of weak indication that
the two are both object-oriented(based) programming.
I would hardly call it "dead". Most of my own work uses dynamic
polymorphism only where the implementation can vary at run-time, or at
least at load-time, and that is fairly rare. (However, my classes do tend
to be heap-allocated and forward-declared, for dependency management.)
That's interesting. I have never seen a programmer take the frosting
but leave the cake like that. Do you have an example of code where you
have done this? I am curious to see what it looks like.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]