Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Dec 2010 19:27 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Mono Project For the most time, I've been firmly in the largest camp when it comes to the Mono debate - the 'I don't care'-camp. With patent lawsuits being hotter than Lady Gaga right now, that changed. For good reason, so it seems; while firmly in the 'ZOMG-MICROSOFT-IS-T3H-EVILL!1!!ONE!'-camp, The-Source.com investigated the five most popular Mono applications, and the conclusion is clear: all of them implement a lot of namespaces which are not covered by Microsoft's community promise thing.
Permalink for comment 453813
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Evil Companies
by henderson101 on Thu 16th Dec 2010 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Evil Companies"
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30


"The fact that adding a virtual method to a base class will break the ABI for everything is really bad. It makes shipping applications a real PITA.


This is actually an issue with all OO languages, also know as Fragile Base Class problem.
"

Well, no. In this instance it's specifically a C++ issue as C++ creates the VMT statically at compile time. Not every OO language is that strict. Some, and I'm using Objective-C here as an example, will allow the developer to dynamically extend a base class (or any class in the hierarchy), add in whole sections of code to a class or even completely alter the functionality of a method at runtime. Because C++ is entirely static in nature with regards to this situation, it has the fragile base class issue you mention

Reply Parent Score: 1