Re: Limit of 255 superclasses too low?

Uli Kusterer <witness@t-online.de>
13 Feb 2004 23:56:12 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Limit of 255 superclasses too low? witness@t-online.de (Uli Kusterer) (2003-11-21)
Re: Limit of 255 superclasses too low? d699rb302@sneakemail.com (Tim Olson) (2003-12-03)
Re: Limit of 255 superclasses too low? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2003-12-03)
Re: Limit of 255 superclasses too low? witness@t-online.de (Uli Kusterer) (2004-02-13)
Re: Limit of 255 superclasses too low? witness@t-online.de (Uli Kusterer) (2004-02-13)
Re: Limit of 255 superclasses too low? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-02-26)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Uli Kusterer <witness@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 13 Feb 2004 23:56:12 -0500
Organization: T-Online
References: 03-11-075 03-12-019
Keywords: OOP, design, summary
Posted-Date: 13 Feb 2004 23:56:12 EST

  Chris F Clark <cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
> Just like Moore's law, the size of the simulated chips doubles with
> great regularity, and at roughly the same speed, so any fixed limit
> (on any attribute of the compiled code) will eventually be exceeded,
> and automated source code writers will then find another limit to
> stretch to cover the boundaries in the problem limit.


Chris,


  I must have missed your message. Sorry for the delay in answering...


  I guess the general consensus is that 255 classes are enough for 80% of
programs, which is enough for me.


  Luckily, my language is basically for beginners, so I doubt they'll
write code like that. If they do, they're probably doing some horrible
design mistake so I guess it's a good idea to give them an error message.


  But I guess there would be a way to break any limit. Your program
definitely sounds interesting. What is it used for? You mentioned a
chip, but that's it ?


Thanks,
-- Uli
http://www.zathras.de


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.