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: fac41,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: tiggr@es.ele.tue.nl (Pieter Schoenmakers)
Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ?
Date: 1997/01/10
Message-ID: <x73ew9jlq8.fsf@tom.ics.ele.tue.nl>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 208994726
sender: tiggr@tom.ics.ele.tue.nl
references: <5acjtn$5uj@news3.digex.net> <JSA.97Jan1181506@alexandria>
organization: Eindhoven University of Technology
newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5b4f6l$aeq@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes:

   Richie Bielak <richieb@calfp.com> writes:

   >Optimizations that require global analysis of all the classes
   >of a program at compile time do not work if we need dynamic loading
   >of classes at runtime, because adding a new class to a running system
   >may invalidate optimizer's assumptions.

   True, but there are plenty of cross-module optimizations (such as
   cross-module inlining) that require the compiler to use information
   from more than one module but don't require analysis of *all* parts of
   a program.

With any kind of static binding (and inlining is the summum in static
binding), the possibilities of dynamically loaded code are limited.  What
to do if a dynamically loaded class redefines some feature causing that
feature to no longer be statically bindable?  Recompile the whole
executable?  --Tiggr