From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-30 19:34:31
Mathew Robertson wrote:
>> >> 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...
It would, because that 'Object' invented in 1980 would have had virtual
functions, which everyone would be forced to pay for.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk