On 17 March 2014 01:25, <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 March 2014 at 13:23:33 UTC, Araq wrote: > >> I note that you are not able to counter my argument and so you escape to >> the meta level. But don't worry, I won't reply anymore. >> > > Discussing OO without a context is kind of pointless since there is > multiple schools in the OO arena. The two main ones being: > > 1. The original OO analysis & design set forth by the people behind > Simula67. Which basically is about representing abstractions (subsets) of > the real word in the computer. > > 2. The ADT approach which you find in C++ std libraries & co. > > These two perspectives are largely orthogonal… > > That said, I think it to be odd to not use the term "virtual" since it has > a long history (Simula has the "virtual" keyword). It would look like a > case of being different for the sake of being different. > > Then again, I don't really mind virtual by default if whole program > optimization is still a future goal for D. > Whole program optimisation can't do anything to improve the situation; it is possible that DLL's may be loaded at runtime, so there's nothing the optimiser can do, even at link time.
