[Shootout-list] OO (was Re: process creation & message passing)

[Einar Karttunen]

On 19.10 20:49, Aaron Denney wrote:
> I would agree, but go further and say it's not useful because it has
> several OO languages with different concepts of what OO is, and what
> an object system provides.  What an "object" consists of is too
> vague.  Now, you can wave your hands and say "well, the native object
> for a given language is what people will use, so that's what we should
> test."

All languages have different concepts in nearly all the tests.

Would you like to kill of e.g. array tests because different languages 
have different array abstractions (with different degrees of safety)?

The test tells more or less how costly is it to create minimal objects
in language X.

> Depending on what features are considered key for OO, you'll get very
> different object systems.  Scheme has several, in fact too many to
> easily list.  Haskell[1] has one where you easily choose which features
> (and what overhead) you want to include.

Creating OO in a non-OO language should show up in the LOC metric - if 
it doesn't it is a good indicator that objects were not so hard in the
specific language. 

I think we would better make the shootout better and add new things,
fix the pages and missing entries rather than speak about what to
remove.

- Einar Karttunen