Re: OOP Language for OS Development

[Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>]

Brian_Heilig wrote:
> You missed the constrained generic parameter. G -> T means that G is
> the generic type and it must conform to T. I don't think C++ templates
> can emulate constrained generics yet, but I could be wrong.

They sort-of can, because there are ways to do the checks at compile time,
but no one really cares. Most C++ folks consider it a mistake to try to
limit generic parameters in this way, because it limits the usability of
templates for absolutely no reason. If the template happens to work for
some class that doesn't conform to T, why should it be prevented from doing
so?

> C++ will never reach the expressive power of Eiffel, but then again,
> you can't make an Eiffel compiler solve factorials, so maybe you win?

Yeah, whatever.