Subj : Re: OO compilers and efficiency
To   : comp.programming
From : Chris Dollin
Date : Wed Jul 20 2005 02:47 pm

Rob Thorpe wrote:

> I would say that it is C, since the GC doesn't change the meaning of
> the language, it's just a library albeit an elaborate one.  But that's
> only a minor difference in point-of-view.  My main point was that GC is
> not tied to OO, or vice versa.

As I say in another message, I believe that if you don't have
GC [1], you don't have OO. I'm not arguing that anyone else
should adopt this attachment; I'm just clarifying my position.

[And of course you can have GC without OO. Been there, done that.]

[1] Automatic store management, not restricted to stacks.

-- 
Chris "electric hedgehog" Dollin
It's called *extreme* programming, not *stupid* programming.

.