Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25789

Re: Why “new”?

From	Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Why “new”?
Date	2011-02-05 09:07 -0500
Organization	albasani.net
Message-ID	<iijlih$a3i$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <iiiaia$5t9$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iiicja$epf$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iiihfu$9pf$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iiikcq$rp2$1@news.albasani.net> <iiirln$fh3$3@lust.ihug.co.nz>

Show all headers | View raw

Lew wrote:
>> Reference to the C++ spec sheds absolutely no light whatsoever on Java.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> That’s where the term “virtual” comes from.

No, that is completely mistaken.  C++ adopted the term because it used the 
technique.  Smalltalk had it before C++.

>>> Like I said, in Java, effectively all methods are virtual.

Lew wrote:
>> Wrong.  Private and static methods are not virtual.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Without understanding the C++ spec, you cannot understand what “virtual”
> means.

What a bullshit thing to say.  Surely you aren't serious.  You could, for 
example, understand the Java spec.  Or you could understand the Smalltalk 
spec.  Or you could understand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_dispatch

It remains that in Java, static and private methods are not virtual, a point 
you seem to want to refute by talking about the C++ spec.  That's like trying 
to understand a Porsche by reading a Ford repair manual.

In any event, you're wasting your time trying to refute a point that happens 
to be factual and verifiable.

Without understand what a "virtual" method is, you won't understand the Java spec.

-- 
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une fenêtre.
.___________.
|###] | [###|
|##/  | *\##|
|#/ * |   \#|
|#----|----#|
||    |  * ||
|o *  |    o|
|_____|_____|
|===========|

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Why “new”? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 18:27 -0800
  Re: Why “new”? Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-02-05 18:04 +0100
  Re: Why “new”? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-05 02:49 -0800
    Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 09:14 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-05 20:42 +1300
    Re: Why “new”? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:46 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-05 10:38 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 09:13 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? jlp <jlp@jlp.com> - 2011-02-05 08:31 +0100
    Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 09:08 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:44 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 09:07 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-05 16:51 +1300
    Re: Why “new”? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-04 23:06 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-05 19:45 +1300
      Re: Why “new”? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-05 10:32 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-04 23:40 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:15 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2011-02-04 21:31 -0800
    Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 01:25 -0500

csiph-web