From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 21 11:07:37 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D5D16A4D1 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net (outbound04.telus.net [199.185.220.223]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34B443D39 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:07:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cpressey@catseye.mine.nu) Received: from catseye.biscuit.boo ([154.5.85.228]) by priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.netSMTP <20040421180736.OGXN9499.priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net@catseye.biscuit.boo>; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:07:36 -0600 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:05:48 -0700 From: Chris Pressey To: Dan MacMillan Message-Id: <20040421110548.20d8e75c.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> In-Reply-To: References: <200404202124.50967.dgw@liwest.at> Organization: Cat's Eye Technologies X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: dgw@liwest.at cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Beginning C++ in FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:07:37 -0000 [let's move this to -chat out of consideration for the individuals who are more concerned with asking/answering questions about FreeBSD] On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:28:48 -0600 Dan MacMillan wrote: > > > > From: Daniela > > > > Sent: April 17, 2004 04:50 > > > > > > > > OO languages can be optimized differently than non-OO languages, > > > > and when you translate one language into another, this advantage > > > > gets lost. > > > > > > I challenge you to defend this claim with a specific example. > > > > I don't really have a specific example, but it's quite the same with > > human languages. The more often a text is translated, the more > > useless information > > gets added to it. And if the original text is beautifully written, > > it is often total crap when you translate it back. > > These are not analagous. The reason things get lost in the > translation of human language is that it is not possible to represent > every expression in one human language with complete precision in > another. I challenge you to defend this (Sapir-Worfian) claim with a specific example. :) > However, it =is= possible to represent object orientation > with complete precision in a procedural language. To support object > orientation, C++ adds to C an intrinsic this pointer and vtables. > These concepts can be expressed explicitly in C without loss of > fidelity. That (the Turing-Church thesis) is not at issue. What is at issue is opportunities for optimization. I can't say for "Object Orientation" specifically (since there are as many definitions of an "OO language" as there are "OO languages",) but in general, translation between languages *can* result in a loss of opportunities for optimization. For example, if you translate a program from a language with partially-specified evaluation order to one with strict & fully-specified evaluation order, do you not lose the opportunity to optimize it by reordering evaluations? -Chris