H. W. Schmidt and S. Omohundro, `CLOS, Eiffel and Sather: a comparison', Technical Report TR-91-047, International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, September 1991.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....published which analyze and compare object oriented languages. Hen94] concentrates on implementation questions. Our work will concentrate on usefullness and completeness of languages. We will discuss environment questions only if they are related to the concept of the language, as in SmallTalk. [Sch91] includes no practical experience. This project will provide an analysis of a practical comparison. Gun94] offers a theoretical comparision between object oriented semantic models by using CLU and SmallTalk for his discussion. Our project will focus on the languages themselves but not the ....

Schmidt, H. W. and Omohundro, S. M., "CLOS, Eiffel, and Sather: A Comparison", ICSI, TR-91-047, September 1991

....They are not a straightforward recipe to create the perfect language, but they are a basis on which to judge the suitability of a particular language for first year teaching. 3 EVALUATION OF LANGUAGES Many papers have been published comparing different aspects of a variety of languages (e.g. [4 7]) Most of those, however, concentrate on technical aspects of the languages themselves, rather than assessing their suitability for teaching. Here we evaluate C , Java, Eiffel and Smalltalk in light of their suitability for first year teaching. C C fails to meet al..most all requirements on ....

Schmidt, H. W. and S. M. Omohundro, "CLOS, Eiffel and Sather - A Comparison", ICSI, Berkeley, Technical Report TR-91-047, 1991.

....published which analyze and compare object oriented languages. Hen94] concentrates on implementation questions. Our work will concentrate on usefulness and completeness of languages. We will discuss environment questions only if they are related to the concept of the language, as in Smalltalk. [Sch91] includes no practical experience. This project will provide an analysis of a practical comparison. Gun94] offers a theoretical comparison between object oriented semantic models by using CLU and Smalltalk for his discussion. Our project will focus on the languages themselves but not the semantic ....

Schmidt, H. W. and Omohundro, S. M., "CLOS, Eiffel, and Sather: A Comparison", ICSI, TR-91-047, September 1991

....graph rather than a tree. This leads to interesting questions about exactly which ancestor a property should be inherited from, and significantly increases the complexity of the programming language definition. Discussions of various mechanisms used to deal with this problem can be found in [4] and [5] Having to specify the mapping between properties and entities at compile time also creates a rigid representation. For example, consider a compiler for a language like Pascal that distinguishes type identifiers from variable identifiers but provides only a single name space. The compiler ....

Schmidt, H. W. & Omohundro, S. M., "CLOS, Eiffel, and Sather: A Comparison," International Computer Science Institute, TR-91-047, Berkeley, CA, September 1991.

....differs from Eiffel in a number of respects (for example the Sather type system allows the programmer to explicitly distinguish between declarations that cause dispatch and declarations that are resolved by the compiler) It is more structured and with more features with respect to C . In [SO91] there is a comparison among CLOS, Eiffel and Sather. Sather features are: clean and simple syntax, parameterized classes, object oriented dispatch, multiple inheritance, strong typing and garbage collection. All code is partitioned into units called classes. The entities defined in a class are ....

H.Schmidt, S.Omohundro. "CLOS, Eiffel and Sather: A Comparison", ICSI Internal Report 91-047, September 1991.

....a deep familiarity with the theoretical underpinnings. Keyword Codes: D.1.5, F.3.1, F.1. 1 Keywords: Object Oriented Programming, Reasoning about Programs, Models of Computation, Complexity 1 Introduction Modern imperative object oriented design methods and languages, such as Eiffel [12] or Sather [13, 14, 17], address system design, quality management and reusable library documentation by a rigorous approach to interface specification. Assertions, such as class and loop invariants, method pre and postconditions are used for systematic testing, documentation and validation a preliminary version of ....

H.W. Schmidt and S. Omohundro. Object-Oriented Programming: The CLOS Perspective, chapter `CLOS, Eiffel and Sather: A comparison', pages 181--213. MIT Press, 1993.

....Object Oriented Languages, Complexity, Amortized Complexity This article results from a sabbatical visit of the author to the CSIRO, Div. of Information Technology in Canberra 2 1. Introduction Modern imperative object oriented design methods and languages, such as Eiffel [11] or Sather [12,13,16], address system design, quality management and reusable library documentation by a rigorous approach to interface specification. Assertions, such as class and loop invariants, method pre and postconditions are used for systematic testing, documentation and validation and therefore become a ....

H.W. Schmidt and S. Omohundro. Object-Oriented Programming: The CLOS Perspective, chapter `CLOS, Eiffel and Sather: A comparison', pages 181--213. MIT Press, 1993.

....of efficient dynamic dispatch has been the subject of several papers. For instance Rose [19] compares various low level interrupt based dispatching on stock hardware that makes single dispatch as fast as function calls at the cost of portability. Some implementations such as CLOS [11] and Sather [17, 18, 22] use hashing while others such as C and Eiffel [15] use lookup tables. CLOS calls a generic function which encapsulates the lookup, while most other languages generate special call instructions. Sather and C [27] currently employ very different dynamic dispatching mechanisms. C objects have ....

H.W. Schmidt and S.M. Omohundro, "CLOS, Eiffel and Sather: A Comparison". in A. Paepcke (ed.): Object-Oriented Programming: The CLOS Perspective MIT Press, 1993.

....of superclass encapsulation permitting the extension of concurrent objects without forcing the redefinition of many seemingly unrelated inherited methods. We are aiming towards a practical approach to provability for CO such as taken by modern imperative OO languages such as Eiffel [6] or Sather [8, 9, 11]. Hoare logic assertions [15] embedded in these programs are part of the visible interface definition and become immediately useful in systematic validation, documentation and reuse, whether supported by tools or as part of an external quality management process. A methodology called ....

H.W. Schmidt and S. Omohundro. Object-Oriented Programming: The CLOS Perspective, chapter `CLOS, Eiffel and Sather: A comparison', pages 181-213. MIT Press, 1993.

....quality standards are becoming mandatory. CO therefore necessitate trade offs particularly between provability (of global properties) local control (of encapsulated objects) and efficiency. We are aiming towards a minimal and practical approach to provability for CO based on Eiffel[8] and Sather [10, 11, 14] in an extension of Sather called cSather (concurrent Sather) Hoare triples [18] are part of the visible interface and become immediately useful in systematic validation, documentation and reuse, whether supported by tools or as part of an external quality management process. A methodology ....

H.W. Schmidt and S. Omohundro. ObjectOriented Programming: The CLOS Perspective, chapter `CLOS, Eiffel and Sather: A comparison', pp. 181-213. MIT Press, 1993.

No context found.

H. W. Schmidt and S. Omohundro, `CLOS, Eiffel and Sather: a comparison', Technical Report TR-91-047, International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, September 1991.

No context found.

H. W. Schmidt and S. M. Omohundro, "CLOS, Eiffel, and Sather: A Comparison", in Andreas Paepcke, ed. Object Oriented Programming: The CLOS Perspective, MIT Press, Boston (1993).

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC