DOCSLIB.ORG

The Differences Between Sather and Eiffel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Differences Between Sather and Eiffel The Differences Between Sather and Eiffel CLOS showed it to be far too within some class. Class names are inefficient for the desired purposes. in a global namespace and elass Eiffel was chosen as the language of feature names are interpreted relative choice and a system with about 150 to the elass in which they appear. classes was developed over a period These two levels of namespace of 18 months. This experience hierarchy appear exactly right for demonstrated the power of many projects with several hundred classes Eiffel concepts, but also exposed and several tens of features within many weaknesses in the design and each class. Aspects of Eiffel's clean Sather is a new object oriented implementation for our purposes. syntax have been retained. Each language derived primarily from The primary shortcomings from our construct is self bracketed by Eiffel. Many design decisions must perspective were the inefficiency of keywords and there is no need for be made in the design of a language the generated code and growing "begin/end" constructs. The and different priorities give rise to semantic complexity of the grammar is LALR(I) and easily fits different decisions. Every language language. We were also beginning on a page. is a compromised response to a large the design of object oriented number of conflicting goals. This constructs for parallel computers and Added Features article focuses on the priorities needed a non-proprietary compiler Several features not found in which informed the design of Sather. base on which to build. For these Eiffel were added. Shared and Eiffel reflects a different set of reasons, we undertook the design of constant features in Sather are priorities than those described here a more efficient, simplified language and may well be more appropriate variables that are allocated per class which still retained the desirable and may be directly accessed by any for certain users. features of Eiffel. The design went object from the class. Sather arrays The International Computer through many iterations and many are a part of the language rather than Science Institute is involved in a people made suggestions and being merely a special class as in variety of projects that require the refinements. Eiffel. The memory for objects may construction of complex software. The fundamental language have a variable sized array portion Some examples include a general features were retained from Eiffel. after the storage for features. purpose connectionist simulator; a The two primary forms of reuse in Standard syntax is used to access high-level vision system based on Sather are based on parameterized and assign to array elements ( ego intricate geometric data structures; classes and object oriented dispatch. "a[5]:=3", "e:=b[17,c+d]", the support software for a high-speed Sather is garbage collected and "f[7,2,3].foo"). The code generated parallel computing engine for speech supports multiple inheritance. for Sather array access often avoids recognition; and CAD tools for Classes provide modularity and a double indirection needed for an integrated circuit design. Each of encapsulation and all code is defined equivalent Eiffel array access. these applications requires both complex data structures and very high efficiency. The complexity of these projects suggested that the benefit of switching from C to an object oriented language would far outweigh the startup costs. Sather was initially developed in response to the needs of the vision project. Preliminary work with C++ and Objective C showed them to be insufficiently elean and modular for the needed tasks. The lack of garbage collection, parameterized types, and at the time, multiple inheritance prevented the development of software modules with the desired level of 12 encapsulation and reuse. Work with by Stephen Omohundro Arrays are used extensively in "RECTANGLE". As long as statement list and "assert" for a the library code. Local variables in "add_vertex" is not applied to a conditionally compiled boolean test. Sather may be declared at the point "$POLYGON"variable, this causes The inheritance rules are much of use (as in C++) rather than in a no problems in Sather. special"local" section at the simpler in Sather than in Eiffel. Sather uses the more natural There is no "rename" construct to beginning of a routine. Class "contravariant" rule for constraining access ancestor features under a features may be declared "private" at the types of function arguments in different name. Eiffel has complex the point of definition (instead of not inherited classes, while Eiffel uses a rules for multiple inheritance paths appearing in an "export" list at the "covariant" rule. This means that in to the same ancestor class in the beginning of a class definition). A Sather the arguments of routines inheritance DAG. In Sather, the "break" statement to exit from loops which are used in a dispatched effect of inheritance is exactly as if and a "retumHstatement to exit from fashion must have a type in a the parent class were textually routines were added. The "switch II descendent which is a super-type of copied into the descendent class at statement (analogous to the Eiffel the type in the parent rather than a the point at which the parent is "inspect" statement) allows arbitrary sub-type. This ensures that any code inherited. The definitions of later expressions in the target clauses. which has valid types on the parent Conditionally compiled assertions attributes override the definitions of will still have valid types on the earlier attributes with the same and debug statements are named in child. Eiffel cannot make this natural name. In Eiffel, "Create" and Sather and an arbitrary subset of choice because it would prevent "Clone" are different from every names may be activated on any many common uses of inheritance. other function in that they change given compilation. As in C++, Because Sather makes the distinction the value of a variable they are Sather allows direct access to class between dispatched and applied to. In Sather the only way to routines, shareds and constants using non-dispatched type declarations, change the value of a variable is to the syntax "FOO::routine(S,6y. and only applies the type constraints assign to it. Sather adds the "type" The Sather type system has a to dispatched usage, these common feature that returns the tag ofan major addition to that of Eiffel. In uses are still available in a object and is necessary to do Eiffel, a variable may hold an object contravariant framework. old-style switch-based dispatch. of any descendent class of its Sather is much smaller than declared class. In Sather, the Simplifications Eiffel. Eiffel keywords which were declaration "a:FOO" means that the Several Eiffel features were eliminated in Sather include: variable "a" will hold an object eliminated or simplified. Expanded "as", "BITS", "CloneH, HCreaten, whose type is "FOO", while classes and binary operator H deferred", "define", H div", "do", "a:$POO" means that "a" may hold overloading were viewed as creating "ensure", "expanded", "export", any descendent of "POO". This often more complexity than they "external", "feature", " Porget" , allows the compiler to do better type elim:inated. Sather provides library "from", "implies", "inherit","infixlI, checking and to generate far more classes to support exception "invariant", "is" , "language", "like", efficient code than it otherwise handling rather than building it into "localII , "mod", "name", could. It also introduces an extra the language. The complex liNochange", "obsolete", "old", level of specification which can exception handling in Eiffel is a Honce", "prefix", "redefine", clarify the semantics in situations major source of inefficiency. Eiffel "rename", "repeat", "require", with complex inheritance. In Sather, IIonce" functions were eliminated "rescue", "retry", "unique", a descendent class need not define because the "shared" attributes in A "variant", "Void". "xor".and II ". all of the features that its ancestors Sather are simpler and may be used In several cases features have been define. Such a requirement only to perform the same function. The moved from the language into an holds for those features which are Nlike" construct was eliminated. The appropriate library class. applied to "$" variables. Thus if main use for this in our code was to IIFOO" defines the routine declare something to have the type The Sather Environment Hfoo_rout", it's descendents need of the current class. A special The Sather implementation and only define it if a dispatched access declarator "SELF TYPE" is used in programming environment is Ha.fooJout" appears applied to a Sather to declare ;uch variables. The somewhat different from Eiffel's. variable declared as "a:$FOO". This conditionally compiled statements in More than one class may be defined solves a problem that has recently Eiffel ("check", "ensure", in a file and the file name need have received much discussion. The class "invariant", "require", "variant", and nothing to do with the class name. "POLYGON" might define a routine "debug" ) were reduced to just Class names may be of any length "add vertex", which is inappropriate "debug" for a conditionally compiled 13 and are not restricted to file names ~~o~r~th~-e~d~e~sc~en~d~en~t~cl~a~ss~_________________________________________________________________ Sather Differences (continued from page 13) problems, including Towers of An extensive library of Sather Hanoi, Eight Queens, etc. The allowed by the operating system. classes is being developed. As with special features of RIse machines Many times a natural conceptual unit the compiler, the design of the (register windows, etc.) may consists of many small classes and library focuses on efficiency and exacerbate the efficiency problem it's convenient to put them in the extensively uses the efficiency with the generated Eiffel code. same file. It's also convenient for enhancing features of Sather.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction Code Reuse
    The Sather Language: Efficient, Interactive, Object-Oriented Programming Stephen Omohundro Dr. Dobbs Journal Introduction Sather is an object oriented language which aims to be simple, efficient, interactive, safe, and non-proprietary. One way of placing it in the "space of languages" is to say that it aims to be as efficient as C, C++, or Fortran, as elegant and safe as Eiffel or CLU, and to support interactive programming and higher-order functions as well as Common Lisp, Scheme, or Smalltalk. Sather has parameterized classes, object-oriented dispatch, statically-checked strong typing, separate implementation and type inheritance, multiple inheritance, garbage collection, iteration abstraction, higher-order routines and iters, exception handling, constructors for arbitrary data structures, and assertions, preconditions, postconditions, and class invariants. This article describes the first few of these features. The development environment integrates an interpreter, a debugger, and a compiler. Sather programs can be compiled into portable C code and can efficiently link with C object files. Sather has a very unrestrictive license which allows its use in proprietary projects but encourages contribution to the public library. The original 0.2 version of the Sather compiler and tools was made available in June 1991. This article describes version 1.0. By the time the article appears, the combined 1.0 compiler/interpreter/debugger should be available on "ftp.icsi.berkeley.edu" and the newsgroup "comp.lang.sather" should be activated for discussion. Code Reuse The primary benefit promised by object-oriented languages is reuse of code. Sather programs consist of collections of modules called "classes" which encapsulate well-defined abstractions.
    [Show full text]
  • CLOS, Eiffel, and Sather: a Comparison
    CLOS, Eiffel, and Sather: A Comparison Heinz W. Schmidt-, Stephen M. Omohundrot " September, 1991 li ____________T_R_._91_-0_47____________~ INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER SCIENCE INSTITUTE 1947 Center Street, Suite 600 Berkeley, California 94704-1105 CLOS, Eiffel, and Sather: A Comparison Heinz W. Schmidt-, Stephen M. Omohundrot September, 1991 Abstract The Common Lisp Object System defines a powerful and flexible type system that builds on more than fifteen years of experience with object-oriented programming. Most current implementations include a comfortable suite of Lisp support tools in­ cluding an Emacs Lisp editor, an interpreter, an incremental compiler, a debugger, and an inspector that together promote rapid prototyping and design. What else might one want from a system? We argue that static typing yields earlier error detec­ tion, greater robustness, and higher efficiency and that greater simplicity and more orthogonality in the language constructs leads to a shorter learning curve and more in­ tuitive programming. These elements can be found in Eiffel and a new object-oriented language, Sather, that we are developing at leS!. Language simplicity and static typ­ ing are not for free,·though. Programmers have to pay with loss of polymorphism and flexibility in prototyping. We give a short comparison of CLOS, Eiffel and Sather, addressing both language and environment issues. The different approaches taken by the languages described in this paper have evolved to fulfill different needs. While we have only touched on the essential differ­ ences, we hope that this discussion will be helpful in understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each language. -ICSI, on leave from: Inst. f. Systemtechnik, GMD, Germany tICSI 1 Introduction Common Lisp [25] was developed to consolidate the best ideas from a long line of Lisp systems and has become an important standard.
    [Show full text]
  • Iterable Abstract Pattern Matching for Java
    JMatch: Iterable Abstract Pattern Matching for Java Jed Liu and Andrew C. Myers Computer Science Department Cornell University, Ithaca, New York Abstract. The JMatch language extends Java with iterable abstract pattern match- ing, pattern matching that is compatible with the data abstraction features of Java and makes iteration abstractions convenient. JMatch has ML-style deep pattern matching, but patterns can be abstract; they are not tied to algebraic data con- structors. A single JMatch method may be used in several modes; modes may share a single implementation as a boolean formula. Modal abstraction simplifies specification and implementation of abstract data types. This paper describes the JMatch language and its implementation. 1 Introduction Object-oriented languages have become a dominant programming paradigm, yet they still lack features considered useful in other languages. Functional languages offer expressive pattern matching. Logic programming languages provide powerful mech- anisms for iteration and backtracking. However, these useful features interact poorly with the data abstraction mechanisms central to object-oriented languages. Thus, ex- pressing some computations is awkward in object-oriented languages. In this paper we present the design and implementation of JMatch, a new object- oriented language that extends Java [GJS96] with support for iterable abstract pattern matching—a mechanism for pattern matching that is compatible with the data abstrac- tion features of Java and that makes iteration abstractions more convenient.
    [Show full text]
  • Concepts in Programming Languages
    Concepts in Programming Languages Alan Mycrofta Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge 2014–2015 (Easter Term) http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/1415/ConceptsPL/ aNotes largely due to Marcelo Fiore—but errors are my responsibility. 1 Practicalities Course web page: www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/1415/ConceptsPL/ with lecture slides, exercise sheet, and reading material. One exam question. 2 Main books J. C. Mitchell. Concepts in programming languages. Cambridge University Press, 2003. T.W. Pratt and M. V.Zelkowitz. Programming Languages: Design and implementation (3RD EDITION). Prentice Hall, 1999. ⋆ M. L. Scott. Programming language pragmatics (2ND EDITION). Elsevier, 2006. R. Harper. Practical Foundations for Programming Languages. Cambridge University Press, 2013. 3 Context : so many programming languages Peter J. Landin: “The Next 700 Programming Languages”, CACM >>>>1966<<<<. Some programming-language ‘family trees’ (too big for slide): http://www.oreilly.com/go/languageposter http://www.levenez.com/lang/ http://rigaux.org/language-study/diagram.html http://www.rackspace.com/blog/ infographic-evolution-of-computer-languages/ Plan of this course: pick out interesting programming- language concepts and major evolutionary trends. 4 Topics I. Introduction and motivation. II. The first procedural language: FORTRAN (1954–58). III. The first declarative language: LISP (1958–62). IV. Block-structured procedural languages: Algol (1958–68), Pascal (1970). V. Object-oriented languages — Concepts and origins: Simula (1964–67), Smalltalk (1971–80). VI. Languages for concurrency and parallelism. VII. Types in programming languages: ML (1973–1978). VIII. Data abstraction and modularity: SML Modules (1984–97). IX. A modern language design: Scala (2007) X. Miscellaneous concepts 5 Topic I Introduction and motivation References: g g Chapter 1 of Concepts in programming languages by J.
    [Show full text]
  • Object-Oriented and Concurrent Program Design Issues in Ada 95
    Object-Oriented and Concurrent Program Design Issues in Ada 95 Stephen H. Kaisler Michael B. Feldman Director, Systems Architecture Professor of Engineering and Applied Science Office of the Sergeant at Arms Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science United States Senate George Washington University Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20052 202-224-2582 202-994-6083 [email protected] [email protected] 1. ABSTRACT Kaisler [4] identified several design issues that arose 2. INTRODUCTION from developing a process for transforming object- oriented programs written in Ada 95 or other object- Kaisler [4] described research leading to a methodology oriented programming languages to process-oriented for converting object-oriented programs to process- programs written in Ada 95. These issues limit - in the oriented programs and, thereby, making the concurrency authors' opinion - the flexibility of Ada 95 in writing implicit in object-oriented programs explicit. This concurrent programs. These problems arise from research was motivated by the fact that writing specific decisions made by the Ada 95 designers. This concurrent programs is difficult to do - no general paper addresses three of these issues: circular methodology exists - and by our recognition of the references are invalid in packages, lack of a similarity between object-oriented and process-oriented subclassing mechanism for protected types, and an programs. inability to internally invoke access statements from within a task body. Our goal is to raise the Ada 95 We believed that object-oriented programs, which exhibit community's awareness concerning these design issues a potential for concurrency, could be converted to and provide some suggestions for correcting these process-oriented programs, thereby making the problems for a future revision of the Ada concurrency explicit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Australian National University Object Test Coverage Using Finite
    The Australian National University TR-CS-95-06 Object Test Coverage Using Finite State Machines Oscar Bosman and Heinz W. Schmidt September 1995 Joint Computer Science Technical Report Series Department of Computer Science Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology Computer Sciences Laboratory Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering This technical report series is published jointly by the Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, and the Computer Sciences Laboratory, Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering, The Australian National University. Please direct correspondence regarding this series to: Technical Reports Department of Computer Science Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia or send email to: [email protected] A list of technical reports, including some abstracts and copies of some full reports may be found at: http://cs.anu.edu.au/techreports/ Recent reports in this series: TR-CS-95-05 Jeffrey X. Yu, Kian-Lee Tan, and Xun Qu. On balancing workload in a highly mobile environment. August 1995. TR-CS-95-04 Department of Computer Science. Annual report 1994. August 1995. TR-CS-95-03 Douglas R. Sweet and Richard P. Brent. Error analysis of a partial pivoting method for structured matrices. June 1995. TR-CS-95-02 Jeffrey X. Yu and Kian-Lee Tan. Scheduling issues in partitioned temporal join. May 1995. TR-CS-95-01 Craig Eldershaw and Richard P. Brent. Factorization of large integers on some vector and parallel computers. January 1995. TR-CS-94-10 John N. Zigman and Peiyi Tang.
    [Show full text]
  • Sather 1.0 Tutorial
    INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER SCIENCE INSTITUTE Center St Suite BerkeleyCalifornia FAX I Sather Tutorial Michael Philippsen phlipp icsib erkeleyedu TR Version Decemb er Abstract This do cumentprovides basic information on how to obtain your copy of the Sather system and gives several p ointers to articles discussing Sather in more detail We thoroughly describ e the implementation of a basic chess program By carefully reading this do cument and the discussed example program you will learn enough ab out Sather to start programming in Sather yourself This do cumentis intended for programmers familiar with ob ject oriented languages such as Eiel or C General information on ob ject oriented programming can b e found in The main features of Sather are explained in detail wecover the dierence between subtyping and implementation inheritance and explain the implementation and usage of iters Moreover the example program intro duces all the class elements constants shared and ob ject attributes routines and iters are intro duced Most statements and most expressions are also discussed Where appropriate the usage of some basic features which are provided by the Sather libraries are demonstrated The Tutorial is completed by showing how an external class can b e used to interface to a C program On leave from Department of Computer Science University of Karlsruhe Germany Contents Ab out Sather Where can I nd Sather Where can I read ab out Sather Related Work SatherK Planned Changes to this Tutorial
    [Show full text]
  • Programming with Assertions: a Prospectus
    Assertions can help improve software quality. To use them effectively, it’s important to determine when they are valid. Brian A. Malloy and Jeffrey M. Voas SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT Programming with Assertions: A Prospectus recent report states that after five Tech., May 2002). With all these hurdles, it’s no decades of software development, wonder why practitioners are looking for alterna- defective software is the norm, high- tives to testing. quality software the exception (“50 AYears of Software: Key Principles for Quality,” ONE ALTERNATIVE: ASSERTIONS J.A. Whittaker and J.M. Voas, IT Professional, An alternative to testing that has increasing pop- Nov.-Dec. 2002, pp. 28-35).This is a disappointing ularity and usage entails the use of assertions to observation in view of the many advances that monitor the data attributes of functions or classes. software development has realized, including the Assertions are formal constraints on the behavior emergence of software process improvement and of a software application; Alan Turing originally the adoption of object technology, including a advocated their use in 1950 (“The Emperor’s Old Unified Modeling Language (UML). Clothes,” C. Hoare, Comm.ACM, Feb. 1981): All these advances facilitate the design of object- oriented systems and the development of compo- An early advocate of using assertions in pro- nent-based software.Clearly,to address the quality gramming was none other than Alan Turing him- problem for software, developers need a technol- self. On 24 June 1950 at a conference in ogy that specializes in producing robust software. Cambridge, he gave a short talk entitled One widely used process that supports the con- “Checking a Large Routine” which explains the struction of quality software is testing, which exe- idea with great clarity.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting Coroutines
    6 Revisiting Coroutines ANA LUCIA´ DE MOURA and ROBERTO IERUSALIMSCHY Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC–Rio) This article advocates the revival of coroutines as a convenient general control abstraction. After proposing a new classification of coroutines, we introduce the concept of full asymmetric coroutines and provide a precise definition for it through an operational semantics. We then demonstrate that full coroutines have an expressive power equivalent to one-shot continuations and one-shot delimited continuations. We also show that full asymmetric coroutines and one-shot delimited continuations have many similarities, and therefore present comparable benefits. Nevertheless, coroutines are easier implemented and understood, especially in the realm of procedural languages. Categories and Subject Descriptors: D.3.3 [Programming Languages]: Language Constructs and Features—Control structures, coroutines General Terms: Design, Languages Additional Key Words and Phrases: Continuations, generators, multitasking ACM Reference Format: de Moura, A. L. and Ierusalimschy, R. 2009. Revisiting coroutines. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 31, 2, Article 6 (February 2009), 31 pages. DOI = 10.1145/1462166.1462167 http:// doi.acm.org/10.1145/1462166.1462167 1. INTRODUCTION The concept of coroutines was introduced in the early 1960’s and constitutes one of the oldest proposals of a general control abstraction. It is attributed to Conway, who described coroutines as “subroutines who act as the master pro- gram,” and implemented this construct to
    [Show full text]
  • The Cecil Language Specification and Rationale Version 3.2
    The Cecil Language Specification and Rationale Version 3.2 Craig Chambers and the Cecil Group Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of Washington Box 352350, Seattle, Washington 98195-2350 USA February, 2004 Abstract Cecil is a purely object-oriented language intended to support rapid construction of high-quality, extensible software. Cecil combines multi-methods with a simple classless object model, a kind of dynamic inheritance, modules, and optional static type checking. Instance variables in Cecil are accessed solely through messages, allowing instance variables to be replaced or overridden by methods and vice versa. Cecil’s predicate objects mechanism allows an object to be classified automatically based on its run-time (mutable) state. Cecil’s static type system distinguishes between subtyping and code inheritance, but Cecil enables these two graphs to be described with a single set of declarations, streamlining the common case where the two graphs are parallel. Cecil includes a fairly flexible form of parameterization, including explicitly parameterized objects, types, and methods, as well as implicitly parameterized methods related to the polymorphic functions commonly found in functional languages. By making type declarations optional, Cecil aims to allow mixing of and migration between exploratory and production programming styles. Cecil supports a module mechanism that enables independently-developed subsystems to be encapsulated, allowing them to be type-checked and reasoned about in isolation despite the presence of multi-methods and subclassing. Objects can be extended externally with additional methods and instance variables, often encapsulated in separate modules, supporting a kind of role- based or subject-oriented programming style. This document mixes the specification of the language with discussions of design issues and explanations of the reasoning that led to various design decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering a Programming Language
    .. 209 Engineering a Programming Language: The language design process has been intimately coupled with the design The Type and Class System of Sather ad Implementation of libraries and applications. A particularly demanding ap­ lllieation is the extensible ICSI connectionist network simulator: ICSIM [24J. examples in this paper are taken from the actual code and structure of Clemens Szyperski, Stephen Omohundro, and Stephan Muter Sather libraries and applications to make them realistic. The design effort continually a balance between the needs of applications and constraints on International Computer Science Institute JIIIguage design, such as simplicity and orthogonality. 1947 Center St, Suite 600 ., One of the most fundamental aspects of the Sather 1.0 design is its type Berkeley, CA 94704 ""em. Earlier versions of the language were strongly typed, but it was not Email: {szyperski, om, murer)@icsLberkeley.edu ,J'088ible to statically check a system for type correctness. Eiffel has tbe same Fax: +1 510643-7684 (5), and attempts to solve it by introducing system-level type-checking This is a conservative system-wide global check. A system which satisfies ebeck will be type safe but many legal programs are rejected. Adding new Abstract. Sather 1.0 is a programming language whose design hill! re­ to a system can cause previously correct code to become incorrect. sulted from the interplay of many criteria. It attempts to support a , Sather 1.0 solved this and other problems by completely redesigning the powerful object-oriented paradigm without sacrificing either the com­ putational performance of traditional procedural languages or support t)'pe and class system.
    [Show full text]
  • NIC) NIC Series Volume 27
    Publication Series of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing (NIC) NIC Series Volume 27 John von Neumann Institute for Computing (NIC) Jorg¨ Striegnitz and Kei Davis (Eds.) Joint proceedings of the Workshops on Multiparadigm Programming with Object-Oriented Languages (MPOOL’03) Declarative Programming in the Context of Object-Oriented Languages (DP-COOL’03) organized by John von Neumann Institute for Computing in cooperation with the Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, USA NIC Series Volume 27 ISBN 3-00-016005-1 Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Cataloguing-in-Publication-Data A catalogue record for this publication is available from Die Deutsche Bibliothek. Publisher: NIC-Directors Distributor: NIC-Secretariat Research Centre J¨ulich 52425 J¨ulich Germany Internet: www.fz-juelich.de/nic Printer: Graphische Betriebe, Forschungszentrum J¨ulich c 2005 by John von Neumann Institute for Computing Permission to make digital or hard copies of portions of this work for personal or classroom use is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise requires prior specific permission by the publisher mentioned above. NIC Series Volume 27 ISBN 3-00-016005-1 Table of Contents A Static C++ Object-Oriented Programming (SCOOP) Paradigm Mixing Benefits of Traditional OOP and Generic Programming .................... 1 Nicolas Burrus, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, Thierry Geraud,´ David Lesage, Raphael¨ Poss Object-Model Independence via Code Implants........................... 35 Michał Cierniak, Neal Glew, Spyridon Triantafyllis, Marsha Eng, Brian Lewis, James Stichnoth The ConS/* Programming Languages .................................. 49 Matthias M.
    [Show full text]