Matthew MacClary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would argue that there is a big difference between 'static > OOP' and 'dynamic OOP'. It seems like few OO languages allow dynamic > OO behavior where classes and objects can change at run time, Ruby > is an example of a language that does do this.
IIRC, that's what the OO freaks would actually call `OO'. ISTR C++ is about the sole exception of an `OO language' that allows for early binding, i.e. isn't necessarily really an OO language. Anything else (Python, Java, Ruby, ...) uses late binding, including all its penalty. [Mail-followup-to set] -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
