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, 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.
Thread beginning with comment 453813
To view parent comment, click here.
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"
Member since:

"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