Subj : Re: OO compilers and efficiency
To   : comp.programming
From : Rob Thorpe
Date : Wed Jul 20 2005 11:59 am

Chris Dollin wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
>
> > Chris Dollin wrote:
> >> I believe that if you don't have GC [1], you don't have OO.
> >
> > Why do you think this?
>
> Because you have, in general, to worry about when an object
> is no longer referenced - to do work properly relagated to
> the implementation/language design.
>
> Didn't Bertrand Meyer articulate this in _Object-Oriented
> Software Construction_? I'll try and remember to check my
> copy. Without GC, you need a snail trail of some kind through
> your code to handle deallocation.
>
> [Stackable objects aren't the "in general" case.]

Alan Kay defined object-orientated languages as being those with
objects similar to Smalltalk.  Smalltalk has dynamic types and GC, so
he is using a definition similar to your.

The OO languages in common use today though are descended from Simula,
rather than Smalltalk.  So, the meaning has changed and come to mean
languages that support objects, whether or not they are dynamic and
whether or not GC is supported.  Languages that don't support
inheritance like VB are referred to as OO by many programmers in the
world at large.

Tim Rentsch prophesied this:
"...object oriented programming will be in the 1980's what structured
programming was in the 1970's. Everyone will be in favor of it. Every
manufacturer will promote his products as supporting it. Every manager
will pay lip service to it. Every programmer will practice it
(differently). And no one will know just what it is."

.