From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sashang@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.8 required=5.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,SPF_NEUTRAL 
	autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D634BB84
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 04:14:40 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AokBAIrbcEnRVcbvjWdsb2JhbACTRT4BAQEBCQkKCQ8FqHmBA40HAQMBA4VvhEs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.37,279,1231110000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="21614219"
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.239])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2009 04:14:39 +0100
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id f6so1988399rvb.3
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:14:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=BA9RSlpGREK5tRxlUSzL3xU26lN1GQOE3EiYq+d6B1E=;
        b=t/vZtjzSJ/XtPlyR/kdqwqpo9hSizpYIU/xAN1ulrBj+YmeYk1TMXVRdiR/eUOqclC
         tT2wJHxEsTaOWrK/O/P28uIgk2V+VDCjgmuKSWjZ4iGzPFaIXfzDib64palwo+n9Ur93
         svlIMUAuLBeYtUZ5WlrDcoHf4VoynuS0goXqE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=AUmXbGWrpl03RpiP0FBaf1WIBoXNwQg1bwWQ13HjWde1hMoshJiiKAFmoUj+ajjRGX
         sSKmq1S8pJiu3GQzGtyAm2urT0k7aRktuna+F+vYqx+MmD3cQVxi5JV4FYueyEiPkDfM
         Y8OlcOG66HzFZj2BksfpuRbenV4438qP1wvNg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.19.9 with SMTP id w9mr1561754rvi.31.1232162078215; Fri, 16 
	Jan 2009 19:14:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CE0732F1-482C-49B0-9921-1C0F469B0FFB@osu.edu>
References: <FCB84B14-903B-4DC9-949E-F4190C6D4873@osu.edu>
	 <91a2ba3e0901161027x5432afcbh504b4ca3df501851@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CE0732F1-482C-49B0-9921-1C0F469B0FFB@osu.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:14:38 +1100
Message-ID: <23738f080901161914tb290576yd2306babe68887ea@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] C++/C# inheritance is bad?
From: Sashan Govender <sashang@gmail.com>
To: Kuba Ober <ober.14@osu.edu>
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam: no; 0.00; model:01 ocaml:01 model:01 yaron:01 runtime:01 polymorphism:01 caml-list:01 face:97 inheritance:03 static:03 limitations:04 complain:04 practice:09 objection:09 basically:10 

>
> I basically still hold that Yaron's original objection is baseless in face
> of established good OO practice in C++/Java/C#/...
>
> I do understand the limitations of the popular OO model, of course, and
> the benefits of Jane Street choosing OCaml. I was merely trying to
> understand what I don't understand about the popular OO model that
> would have Yaron complain about not being able to tell which exact
> method is being called... It, somehow, is not an issue for me, not in
> well designed C++ codebases at least.

I thought he was talking about the effects of runtime polymorphism on
static code analysis. You can't tell which method is invoked if the
method is virtual.