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

[Brent Fulgham]

--- Aaron Denney wrote:
> My suggestion means you have multiple tests, each
> requiring some aspect in the object-system that you 
> think is reasonably core.  Requiring the same 
> object-system for all tests means that one can't 
> optimize the object system for case "a" in test "a",

> case "b" in test "b", and so forth, but has to make 
> tradeoffs, just as languages with built-in
> OO systems need to do.

This is an excellent idea.  However, there is still
a hole in that languages without any object system
(or consistent OO library) would still be able to
optimize each test by hand-coding an implementation.
So, perhaps I am wrong and we should require that
tests be implemented using some widely-available
library (e.g., CLOS or GOOP).

My goal is that implementations using something like
Haskell or Clean typeclasses can be considered "valid"
solutions.

-Brent