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

[Isaac Gouy]

> Right, and I'm fine with that.  I don't need the whole program to be
> lazy for it to validly use the technique of laziness.  I don't
> need the entire language to be lazy, just some way of delaying and
> forcing evaluation. 

Seems like you are not talking about features of a language
implementation but arbitrary customizations made by individual
programmers?


> > This just skipped all around the issue - what's core OO.
> 
> Why does it matter what's "core OO"?  It's not like the OO community
> has settled that question.  We can say what we're testing, and test
> it.
> If you want to eliminate "writing to the test" in the object-system,
> require the same object system for multiple tests.

Help me understand how asking that programs should follow the test spec
can be described as wanting to 'eliminate "writing to the test"'?

"This test attempts to measure the speed of method calls in OO
languages. It measures a mixture of method calls of a base and a
derived class on an object of the derived class."

Previously you acknowledged wanting to change the test: "So I want to
change it."



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com