Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> ....so they implemented Java's flawed MI-but-not-MI model? How is that 
>>> fixing the flaws from other major programming languages?
> 
>> Probably fixing what they saw as flawed MI in C++. :-)
> 
>   They "fixed the problems" by removing multiple inheritance completely?

I just want to clarify the smiley-face means I was being at least 
somewhat sarcastic.

>   Maybe MI in C++ has some problems. I has never stopped me from using
> MI in C++ efficiently and for really useful stuff, though.

Remember that C# also allows reflection, dynamic loading of precompiled 
libraries, and runtime code generation, as well as supporting a couple 
dozen other languages. All of this might have some effect on the decisions.

>   Without this possibility each program would have to be statically linked
> with all the system libraries, and thus the same system libraries would be
> loaded into memory multiple times. If there's eg. a huge library used by all
> programs, it would be loaded to memory as many times as there are programs
> running.)

It depends. Some systems had non-dynamic loadable libraries that were 
indeed shared between programs using them. They just got linked at 
specific addresses. (I think Multics did this, IIRC.) For example, on 
the first mainframe I used, the fortran library was at 0x1FF00 or 
something like that. When you started a program that needed the fortran 
runtime, it got mapped into your address space.

I.e., "linked" but not "dynamically under programmer control".

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message