IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Theory and Practice of Programming Forum / Where does polymorphism fit in?
Post #110,848
by static
7/22/03 8:42:30 AM
Reply
New Where does polymorphism fit in?
I had a brief discussion with a colleague today about what polymorphism was. It seems to me that a MOO-type language would handle polymorphism better because the determination about what type of object it is occurs at invocation time, whereas in a FOO-type language, this could not be so because the compiler needs to know the object type.

Except it doesn't. C++ is a FOO-type language, but it supports polymorphism.

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
 
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.
Post #110,854
by ChrisR
7/22/03 9:37:43 AM
Reply
New Polymorphism via inheritance/interface
Static languages achieve their polymorphism either through a common base class or an interface implemented by the class. In dynamic languages, you just call the method and it either responds or it doesn't. This means that the Types in dynamic languages are much more fluid.
     Message Object Oriented vs Function Object Oriented - (JimWeirich) - (71) - July 21, 2003, 12:57:05 PM EDT
         It's not so much a Language issue... - (ChrisR) - (28) - July 21, 2003, 01:30:46 PM EDT
             Mind Games - (JimWeirich) - (27) - July 21, 2003, 03:35:18 PM EDT
                 The biggest difference is how one treats the interaction - (ChrisR) - (26) - July 21, 2003, 04:30:20 PM EDT
                     Now a Language Issue again - (JimWeirich) - (25) - July 21, 2003, 04:52:33 PM EDT
                         Is it "missing methods" or "invalid messages" it handles? - (CRConrad) - (23) - July 21, 2003, 05:04:43 PM EDT
                             Both. - (admin) - (22) - July 21, 2003, 05:08:28 PM EDT
                                 Sorry, I don't think you quite understood what I meant. - (CRConrad) - (21) - July 21, 2003, 05:28:58 PM EDT
                                     Needlessly pedantic, IMO. - (admin) - (20) - July 21, 2003, 05:32:53 PM EDT
                                         OK, so why don't we do it that way, then... - (CRConrad) - (8) - July 21, 2003, 05:47:53 PM EDT
                                             Lose the chip... -NT - (admin) - (3) - July 21, 2003, 05:49:48 PM EDT
                                                 OK, bye, then. (Heard anything from Addison, lately?) -NT - (CRConrad) - (2) - July 21, 2003, 06:02:31 PM EDT
                                                     Suit yourself. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:03:29 PM EDT
                                                     You can do it (new thread) - (orion) - July 21, 2003, 07:41:37 PM EDT
                                             FOO bad. MOO good. - (ChrisR) - (2) - July 21, 2003, 06:12:31 PM EDT
                                                 Mooooooo. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:16:14 PM EDT
                                                 Re: FOO bad. MOO good. - (JimWeirich) - July 21, 2003, 06:31:36 PM EDT
                                             Re: OK, so why don't we do it that way, then... - (JimWeirich) - July 21, 2003, 06:35:39 PM EDT
                                         Method VS Message - (JimWeirich) - (10) - July 21, 2003, 06:42:26 PM EDT
                                             Sure. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:56:59 PM EDT
                                             Re: Method VS Message - (tuberculosis) - (8) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:37 AM EDT
                                                 Re: Method VS Message - (deSitter) - (7) - July 21, 2003, 11:42:24 PM EDT
                                                     Didn't you finish that smalltalk history doc Todd showed us? - (FuManChu) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 12:49:34 AM EDT
                                                         Re: Didn't you finish that smalltalk history doc Todd showed - (deSitter) - July 22, 2003, 12:59:53 AM EDT
                                                     In theory yes, in practice no - (bluke) - (4) - July 22, 2003, 06:01:52 AM EDT
                                                         You must cheat - but you must not get caught - (tuberculosis) - (3) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:44:33 AM EDT
                                                             Yes exactly - (bluke) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 10:31:22 AM EDT
                                                                 Hmmm sounds as if - (Ashton) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 09:19:49 PM EDT
                                                                     Not *so* clever - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:46 AM EDT
                         At that level, it is a language issue... - (ChrisR) - July 21, 2003, 05:32:00 PM EDT
         DoesNotUnderstand - (tuberculosis) - (6) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:14 AM EDT
             Reified Messages - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 21, 2003, 06:50:52 PM EDT
                 Sounds about right to me -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:32 AM EDT
             Re: DoesNotUnderstand - (deSitter) - (3) - July 21, 2003, 11:45:13 PM EDT
                 nil is an object -NT - (admin) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 08:04:50 AM EDT
                     Re: nil is an object - (deSitter) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 10:07:10 AM EDT
                         Re: nil is an object - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 10:49:10 AM EDT
         ICLRPD - (static) - July 21, 2003, 10:53:46 PM EDT
         It is a fundamental difference - (bluke) - (30) - July 22, 2003, 05:56:45 AM EDT
             More Questions - (JimWeirich) - (9) - July 22, 2003, 06:28:12 AM EDT
                 Re: More Questions - (bluke) - (3) - July 22, 2003, 07:23:18 AM EDT
                     Re: More Questions - (JimWeirich) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 07:54:36 AM EDT
                         It relates more to the mindset - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 08:03:03 AM EDT
                         In past discussions with Freep... - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 09:52:34 AM EDT
                 Where does polymorphism fit in? - (static) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 08:42:30 AM EDT
                     Polymorphism via inheritance/interface - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 09:37:43 AM EDT
                 Example - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:45:22 AM EDT
                     Re: Example - (JimWeirich) - July 22, 2003, 11:45:27 AM EDT
                 Statically Typed Smalltalk - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:45:29 AM EDT
             Statically Typed MOO - (JimWeirich) - (19) - July 22, 2003, 10:41:22 AM EDT
                 The other possible avenue - (ChrisR) - (18) - July 22, 2003, 10:47:24 AM EDT
                     Do you know how they do that? - (bluke) - (17) - July 22, 2003, 10:54:10 AM EDT
                         Compiler generates the necessary calls - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 11:02:54 AM EDT
                         AspectJ is code generation - (tuberculosis) - (15) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:46:10 AM EDT
                             A comment and a question ... - (JimWeirich) - (12) - July 22, 2003, 02:19:07 PM EDT
                                 Not really - (tuberculosis) - (11) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:46:27 AM EDT
                                     Pushing the limits of Blanchard's Law - (JimWeirich) - (10) - July 22, 2003, 03:57:21 PM EDT
                                         I don't think the basic argument is so much - (ChrisR) - (8) - July 22, 2003, 04:09:32 PM EDT
                                             Re: I don't think the basic argument is so much - (JimWeirich) - (7) - July 22, 2003, 04:35:10 PM EDT
                                                 Should probably let Todd defend his Laws....but.... :-) - (ChrisR) - (6) - July 22, 2003, 05:03:54 PM EDT
                                                     Still sounds arbitrary ... - (JimWeirich) - (5) - July 22, 2003, 05:14:31 PM EDT
                                                         On par with "Eval" - (ChrisR) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 05:20:45 PM EDT
                                                             Well said -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:08 AM EDT
                                                         No its not - (tuberculosis) - (2) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:13 AM EDT
                                                             Ok, I get it. - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 07:48:18 PM EDT
                                                                 Yep -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:33 AM EDT
                                         Oh yeah - (FuManChu) - July 22, 2003, 04:28:15 PM EDT
                             What is your reasoning for this "law"? - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Sept. 21, 2003, 05:20:53 PM EDT
                                 OT re: coming to this thread late - (drewk) - Sept. 22, 2003, 10:32:55 AM EDT
         Litmus Test - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 07:03:41 AM EDT
             Yes and No - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 07:34:46 AM EDT
         Interesting comp.lang.smalltalk thread on this - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 08:16:51 AM EDT

What a bizarre 'field' ... all about 'Information' - and nobody has any you'd trust!
105 ms