Re: New release of the Dynace OO extension to C
Blake McBride wrote:
Dynace is an open source, OO extension to C that gives C (or C++), a
full meta-object protocol, and multiple inheritance. Dynace is designed
to solve many of the problems associated with C++ while being easier to
learn and containing more flexible object oriented facilities. Dynace is
able to add facilities previously only available in languages such as
Smalltalk and CLOS without all the overhead normally associated with
those environments.
It would be interesting to know what are the differences between
Dynace and Objective-C. If someone would not want to use C++ and instead
use a C with OO extensions, why would he choose Dynace instead of
Objective-C? What does the former have to offer that the latter doesn't?
I also think that the "Dynace vs. C++" is quite misleading at parts.
Skipping your bullshit about C++ creating unmaintainable code (compared
to C), I would like to note that this:
"Dynace is not an interpretive language. Dynace programs are compiled
with a standard C compiler. The majority of the code is just standard
compiled C code with no performance penalty. The only place Dynace
incurs a runtime cost is at the point of method dispatch. Since C++ also
incurs a runtime cost when using virtual functions, there is not much of
a difference between the performance of Dynace programs when compared to
C++."
is misleading. From what I can gather, in Dynace, like in Objective-C,
*all* method calls are dynamically bound, so they always incur a
penalty. You conveniently chose to compare them only to C++ virtual
functions and skipped commenting on non-virtual functions. Someone who
doesn't know C++ might get the wrong impression that in C++ all method
calls are also always dynamically bound.
Also this:
"Dynace comes with a complete set of fundamental classes including
classes to represent all the basic C types, a variety of container
classes (sets, dictionaries, linked lists, associations, etc.),
multi-dimensional dynamic arrays, threads, pipes and semaphores."
falsely gives the impression that C++ does not come with container
classes such as sets, dictionaries (ie. maps), linked lists,
multi-dimensional dynamic arrays, etc. This is deceiving.