Collection Object

[Ruslan Zasukhin]

On 8/4/06 11:46 PM, "Philip Mötteli" <philip.moetteli at econophone.ch> wrote:

>> Well, this is not just C++ issue.
>> I am sure that REALbasic, Java, C#, work in the same way.
> 
> Yes, a lot of object-orientedness is still missing in those
> languages. And no surprise, that in the prototype of all OO
> languages, Smalltalk, it works like in ObjC.
> But only because those languages are not on the top, doesn't mean,
> that your implementation of "method dispatching" in Valentina must
> carry on the same restrictions, does it? No you could say, my
> implementation does it right from the beginning on ­ like Smalltalk.
> 
> 
>>> To cut a long story short: A collection object doesn't need
>>> inheritance. It only needs a format constant member indication and
>>> dynamic binding (that is the dynamic dispatching of these methods).
>> 
>> Well, I can say this is just the maximal generalization of idea.
> 
> No, this is object-orientedness. A language, that doesn't offer this
> doesn't fulfill the requirement of OO. Polymorphing has never been
> defined as being restricted to subclasses because a method has to be
> defined at compile time.

I see. Thank you for point

-- 
Best regards,

Ruslan Zasukhin
VP Engineering and New Technology
Paradigma Software, Inc

Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

[I feel the need: the need for speed]