Re: AW: Thanks for your reply Bruce

• To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• Subject: Re: AW: Thanks for your reply Bruce
• From: brucehoult@pobox.com (Bruce Hoult)
• Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:00:01 -0400 (EDT)
• Organization: The Internet Group Ltd
• References: <A1192030A824D311AADA00508B2C875D9C1E70@MACNT12>
• Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:11991

In article <A1192030A824D311AADA00508B2C875D9C1E70@MACNT12>, "Schlichte,
Marc, PASSO-TS, MThiel" <Marc.Schlichte@PASSO.DE> wrote:

> > Rob Myers <robm@tdv.com> wrote:
> > > As other posters have already pointed out, C++ interoperability is a
> > real
> > > minefiled for any language. Different C++ compilers, ANSI or not, cannot
> > > talk to each other without an object model shim. The name mangling and
> > > vTables are different.
> > 
>         [Schlichte, Marc]  What about Dylan in this respect?
>         Can libraries built by different Dylan compilers for one machine/OS
> talk to each 
>         other seamlessly? Is there a Dylan ABI for some plattforms which
> defines the object-layout,
>         method-dispatch (elaborated v-tables) and name-mangling etc. to beat
> C++
>         in this field?

No.

Thus far there isn't a platform with more than one Dylan compiler. 
Functional Objects only have a product for MS Windows, while the Gwydion
stuff seems to run on everything *except* Windows: Unix/Linux, Mac, BeOS.

In any case, I think it will be some time before Gwydion for one is mature
enough to be able to say "let's freeze the object layout/method
dispatch/name-mangling now".  I don't know of any particular thing that
will be changed, or why, but why tie yourself to legacy stuff too early?

-- Bruce

• AW: Thanks for your reply Bruce
• From: "Schlichte, Marc, PASSO-TS, MThiel" <Marc.Schlichte@PASSO.DE>

• Prev: Re: set precision for a floating number
• Next: Re: AW: Thanks for your reply Bruce
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread