From: Mathew Robertson (mathew.robertson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-30 19:20:34
> >> Yeah, geez. Single-rooted hierarchies of diverse functionality with a
> >> root class called "object" were discredited long ago, weren't they?
> > I am not suggesting a single-rooted heirarchy for *all* the classes as
> > that would be stupid. MFC does it to support their own version of RTTI,
> > memory leak tracking, etc. Java does it because it doesn't have
> > templates. .NET has it because it treats every object as a COM object.
> Python does it too. It's not neccessarily wrong for other languages;
> just C++.
hmm.... If C++ had implemented an 'Object' back in 1980, then "single rooted heirachy"s wouldn't be questioned...
FWIW, the concept of 'flyweght' classes are great -> its a pity that other languages can't get true flyweight semantics.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk