From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 208775662 references: <5acjtn$5uj@news3.digex.net> <32D11FD3.41C6@wi.leidenuniv.nl> <5b2pmn$ntc@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "So? Why is it so important to preserve the "integrity of separation"?" No comment, let's just say that there are those of us who think the separation at an abstract level between specification and implementation is important. I am quite aware that there lots of C programmers who not only don't agree, they don't even understand what I am talking about!! There are times when you want optimizations yet you want to avoid cross-module optimizations, but those should be exceptions; automatic cross-module inlining ought to be the norm. I think not. You can only do cross-module inlining if every compilation potentially recompiles code for the entire application. This seems out of the question in large applications. It seems to me here that the Ada approach is just right. Fergus, if you are aware of the Ada approach, what would you change?