Kind of like Objective-C?
The problem with a single-rooted object heirarchy, in my experience, is that in order to do anything really intricate with it you need runtime type information. This is one of the nastinesses C++ is incorporating, and is the root of the dynamic_cast<> ugliness, etc. To say that there is a runtime effect is to seriously understate the issue.
Objective-C is cool, technologically, but is too Smalltalkish in its syntax to make it flow naturally for a C programmer. A redesign of Objective-C's syntax, from a more-C/less-Smalltalk perspective, rooted on the same foundation could be tasty. Given, however, that you also made strings a first-class type, and that you made it possible to change character sizes.
What you'd have, with a single-rooted object heirarchy, is essentially void*.
Boilerplate programming with a construct like templates is nice, but they'd have to be better constructed than C++'s idea. I'd like to see a "template" idea take a "namespace" as a parameter, making possible some truly splendidly efficient code, but obviating the need for a wacked-out specialized "class". I do like their step in generalizing the default argument handling to include templates. That makes sense, and makes it easier to construct generic code. The gyrations they have to go through to make it reasonably portable across compilers, because compilers are generally a "maze of twisty little standards - all different", is truly nightmarish.
That can hardly be blamed on the language (except in that it is a clusterfuck from the ground up).
i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.
[ Parent ]