C Object System

[Laurent Deniau]

I just put the draft of my paper on the web:

http://cern.ch/laurent.deniau/html/c...la07-draft.pdf

I would be interested by any feedback from C programmers (with little OO
knowledge) to improve the paper quality, even if I don't know yet if the
paper will be accepted. It is not intended to be a manual nor an
introduction to OOP. Just to mention it (not in the paper), my
programming background is 10+ years of C/C++.

Kind regards,

ld.

ABSTRACT:
The C Object System (COS) is a recent framework entirely written in C
which implements high-level concepts available in CLOS, OBJECTIVE-C and
other object-oriented programming languages: uniform object model
(class, metaclass and property-metaclass), generics, multimethods,
delegation, exceptions, contracts and closures. It relies on the
programmable capabilities of C to extend its syntax and to implement the
aforementioned concepts as first-class objects. COS aims at satisfying
several general principles like simplicity, flexibility, extensibility,
efficiency and portability which are rarely met in a single programming
language. Its design is tuned to provide efficient and portable
implementation of message dispatch and message forwarding which are
the heart of code flexibility and extensibility. With COS features,
software should become as flexible and extensive as with scripting
languages and as efficient and portable as expected with C programming.
Likewise, COS concepts should significantly simplify adaptive,
aspect-oriented and subject-oriented programming as well as distributed
systems.

[Keith Thompson]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:32:32 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:

>>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
[...]

>>comp.lang.lcc-win32 and the ilk discuss specific implementations of
the language.

There's no comp.lang.lcc-win32 newsgroup,

Quite possibly you're right. However I don't give two hoots. T'was
merely an example of how to differentiate between comp.lang.c and some
arbitrary implementation's newsgroup.

Fair enough.

In general, the nonexistence of an appropriate newsgroup for some
topic does not excuse the assumption that comp.lang.c is appropriate.
But in this particular case, the existence of comp.compilers.lcc
removes even that excuse.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Richard Tobin]

In article <a6********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

>>Technically Jacob is correct, since C99 "cancels and replaces" C89.

>No. As far as the publication of the Standard goes, this is correct.
As far as the implementation of standards goes, its not.

Presumably implementations of standards cease to be such when the
things they implement cease to be standards. They become
implementations of former standards.

>Consider: your favorite car maker brings out the new, improved Edsel.
Does that stop your older model being an Edsel? No, its just an older
model.

I don't know much about cars, but I assume car makers do not say that
new models "cancel" old ones.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[Mark McIntyre]

On 21 Apr 2007 00:14:41 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

>In article <a6********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

>>>Technically Jacob is correct, since C99 "cancels and replaces" C89.

>>No. As far as the publication of the Standard goes, this is correct.
As far as the implementation of standards goes, its not.

Presumably implementations of standards cease to be such when the
things they implement cease to be standards. They become
implementations of former standards.

IMHO this is a gratuitously fine line out here in the Real World, and
one being drawn for ulterior reasons. In the hypothetical world of ISO
and other standards orgs, no doubt you're correct.

>I don't know much about cars, but I assume car makers do not say that
new models "cancel" old ones.

You don't know much about cars, as you say... :-)
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Marco]

It seems the proper place to discuss this topic is
comp.lang.misc
[But it seems you didn't post there.]
This is where new programming languages and systems are usually
presented and discussed.

Even though COS is written in C it is not really about the C language.

I think it is perfectly valid to announce here to get "views" but you
should have suggested to visit comp.lang.misc for an in depth
discussion.

my humble opinion

[Old Wolf]

On Apr 21, 10:41 am, Mark McIntyre <[e-mail]:

(Richard Tobin) wrote:

Technically Jacob is correct, since C99 "cancels and replaces" C89.

Consider: your favorite car maker brings out the new, improved Edsel.
Does that stop your older model being an Edsel? No, its just an older
model.

Irrelevant example. C99 cancels C89. New Edsels don't cancel old
Edsels.

[Richard Bos]

ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:

In article <a6********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

>Technically Jacob is correct, since C99 "cancels and replaces" C89.

No. As far as the publication of the Standard goes, this is correct.
As far as the implementation of standards goes, its not.

Presumably implementations of standards cease to be such when the
things they implement cease to be standards. They become
implementations of former standards.

Consider: your favorite car maker brings out the new, improved Edsel.
Does that stop your older model being an Edsel? No, its just an older
model.

I don't know much about cars, but I assume car makers do not say that
new models "cancel" old ones.

Ah. And there's the rub. To the mechanics, they do not. To the
salesweasels, they do.

Richard

[Laurent Deniau]

Marco wrote:

It seems the proper place to discuss this topic is
comp.lang.misc
[But it seems you didn't post there.]
This is where new programming languages and systems are usually
presented and discussed.

My post what targeting comments from C programmers, not COS as a new
language. The reason is that I plan to use it for development with C
programmers in a near future and I wanted to know if it looks simple
enough to be handled by C programmers in a couple of days (say after
having read a more in-depth manual).

Even though COS is written in C it is not really about the C language.

I think it is perfectly valid to announce here to get "views"

That was the idea.

but you
should have suggested to visit comp.lang.misc for an in depth
discussion.

I didn't know about this group but usually groups *.misc get either
little valuable information, either little bandwidth. Still, I will do a
post to see what happens ;-) Thanks for the suggestion.

As an example, I also posted to comp.object, but because 'C' appears in
the title, I think nobody read the post or the paper. Which is a bit
amusing, because COS proposes an object model (CLOS object model) which
answers to discussions like "Why OOP failed?" and variant. Since this
kind (very long religious) discussion appear every two weeks on this
group, so I thought that people would be interested by the paper and
feedback valuable opinions, but it seems that they prefer to repeat
discussions about known problems than to see how to solve them.

In the same way, it is not because I asked to C programmers their
opinion that I am not interested by feedback on the object model or any
other aspects of the paper. A lot of C programmers have a good
(sometimes deep) knowledge of other OO languages.

a+, ld.

[Mark McIntyre]

On 22 Apr 2007 14:50:11 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Old Wolf
<ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote:

>On Apr 21, 10:41 am, Mark McIntyre <[e-mail]:

>(Richard Tobin) wrote:

>Technically Jacob is correct, since C99 "cancels and replaces" C89.

Consider: your favorite car maker brings out the new, improved Edsel.
Does that stop your older model being an Edsel? No, its just an older
model.

Irrelevant example. C99 cancels C89.

This argument is tautological and therefore not an actual argument...

"A cat is a mammal" "why?" "because its a sort of mammal"

>New Edsels don't cancel old Edsels.

Try telling that to the marketing dept.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard Bos said:

ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:

<snip>

>>
I don't know much about cars, but I assume car makers do not say that
new models "cancel" old ones.

Ah. And there's the rub. To the mechanics, they do not. To the
salesweasels, they do.

Quite so. And comp.lang.c is a technical newsgroup, not a sales channel.
From a practical perspective, ISO/IEC 9899:1990, no matter how obsolete
it is supposed to be, is not merely extant but dominant.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <Jt******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

>Quite so. And comp.lang.c is a technical newsgroup, not a sales channel.
From a practical perspective, ISO/IEC 9899:1990, no matter how obsolete
it is supposed to be, is not merely extant but dominant.

Though I of course agree that C90 is still the dominant standard, I
can't help feeling that your argument is inconsistent with your usual
position. If this group is dedicated to the discussion of standard
C, and the current C standard itself declares that C90 is obsolete
and "cancelled", surely the group should comply.

Since I am not making a serious point here, don't feel obliged to
expend effort rebutting me.

-- Richard

--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard Tobin said:

In article <Jt******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

>>From a practical perspective, ISO/IEC 9899:1990, no matter
how obsolete it is supposed to be, is not merely extant but dominant.

Though I of course agree that C90 is still the dominant standard, I
can't help feeling that your argument is inconsistent with your usual
position.

I disagree. Naturally. :-)

If this group is dedicated to the discussion of standard
C, and the current C standard itself declares that C90 is obsolete
and "cancelled", surely the group should comply.

My understanding of comp.lang.c's topicality convention is that it is
"once topical, always topical" - which is why K&R C remains topical
here, and why C90 will still be topical even when C99 does become the
de facto standard (long after we are gone, I would guess). I have never
sought to change clc's topicality rules. I merely observe them (pretty
much). I know some people like to paint me as "topic cop", but actually
I'm relatively relaxed about topicality compared to some here.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[CBFalconer]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

<ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote:

.... snip ...

>

>New Edsels don't cancel old Edsels.

Try telling that to the marketing dept.

New Edsels are old Edsels, and probably worthwhile.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline.net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Richard Bos]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

<ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote:

New Edsels don't cancel old Edsels.

Try telling that to the marketing dept.

New Edsels are old Edsels, and probably worthwhile.

Either you mean "valuable", or you haven't seen an Edsel.

Richard