4 ms·

It's pretty clear at this point you don't understand what dynamic dispatch means. I don't think it's worthwhile for anyone else to argue with you further. C++

It's pretty clear at this point you don't understand what dynamic dispatch means. I don't think it's worthwhile for anyone else to argue with you further. C++ and Java both support dynamic dispatch although you deny it. You've taken up almost a full page of HN arguing with everyone trying to explain it to you. People have pointed you to wikipedia showing you that you're wrong. [1] ISOCPP of which Bjarne is a director [2] says that C++ supports dynamic dispatch. [3] And you continue to attempt to argue that everyone on HN, Wikipedia and the creator of the C++ language are all wrong and don't know what dynamic dispatch is. Your continued insistence is both wrong and a negative impact at this point on hn. Please stop arguing something that numerous people have taken lots of patience and charity in trying every way possible to explain to you and what is clearly factually wrong. If you're going to reply, please explain why an organization that Bjarne Stroustrup is a director of believes that C++ supports dynamic dispatch. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_dispatch#C++_implementation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_dispatch#C++_implement... 2 https://isocpp.org/about https://isocpp.org/about 3. https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/big-picture#why-use-oo https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/big-picture#why-use-oo

ukj 5y ago
It is pretty clear at this point that you don’t know what “meaning” is when it relates to the semantics of formal languages. For starters you don’t even understand Rice’s theorem. Sadly this isn’t on Wikipedia. You actually have to dive deep on the Topological, Categorical and Logical view of computation.
ukj 5y ago
>If you're going to reply, please explain why an organization that Bjarne Stroustrup is a director of believes that C++ supports dynamic dispatch. Because the meaning of "dynamic" is ambigous! Since you are pointing me to wikipedia I'll point you right back... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_method_table#Comparison_with_alternatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_method_table#Compariso... "Virtual method tables also only work if dispatching is constrained to a known set of methods, so they can be placed in a simple array built at compile time." If the vtable is generated at compile and is constrained to a known set of methods then that array is immutable! Calling that "dynamic" is an obvious misnomer! You are neither charitable nor patient. You are committing the bandwagon fallacy as we speak. You and the other 120 (and counting) angry downvoters ;) I am using the word "dynamic" to actually mean dynamic! I am not going to define it. Use your judgment. Dynamic is NOT static. I am not asking you to "educate me", or to tell me I am right; or wrong. I am asking you to understand the sort of programming language design I have in mind! Either you understand; or you don't.
LAC-Tech 5y ago
> It's pretty clear at this point you don't understand what dynamic dispatch means. Terms in computing are so overloaded that these days I try[0] and never correct anyone on how they use a term. Instead I ask them to define it, and debate off of that definition. So instead of downvoting this guy for using different terminology - we can ask him what he means and just have a discussion. [0] alright I don't always succeed but it's an ideal to strive for
- ukj 5y ago
  This is a commendable approach. Computation is a general, abstract and incredibly useful idea disconnected from any particular model of computation (programming language). Different languages are just different models of computation and have different (desirable, or undesirable) semantic properties independent from their (trivial) syntactic properties. It's this sort of angry dogmatism which prevents people from talking about programming language design. Not for a second do they pause to think their own understanding may be limited.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    > It's this sort of angry dogmatism which prevents people from talking about programming language design. The dogmatism demonstrated today was in your comments, ukj. Your inability to understand that your non-standard use of terms makes it impossible for others to communicate with you in any effective way made this a remarkable farce of a conversation or debate.
    - ukj 5y ago
      There is no such thing as a "standard" model of computation, and therefore no such thing as "standard definition" or use of computation. There is only the model you (and your tribe) believe is "standard" implicitly. Do you actually understand that? I kinda thought navigating the inherent ambiguity of all language (programming or natural) is a fundamental skill for software engineers. Communication is indeed impossible when you think you possess the "right" meaning of words. Oh... by the way, somebody capable of understanding/listening has just informed me that what I am actually talking about is closer to multiple dispatch than dynamic dispatch. Multiple dispatch is, in fact, more dynamic than "dynamic dispatch". Hilarity ensues.

ukj 5y ago

It is pretty clear at this point that you don’t know what “meaning” is when it relates to the semantics of formal languages. For starters you don’t even understand Rice’s theorem. Sadly this isn’t on Wikipedia. You actually have to dive deep on the Topological, Categorical and Logical view of computation.

ukj 5y ago

>If you're going to reply, please explain why an organization that Bjarne Stroustrup is a director of believes that C++ supports dynamic dispatch. Because the meaning of "dynamic" is ambigous! Since you are pointing me to wikipedia I'll point you right back... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_method_table#Comparison_with_alternatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_method_table#Compariso... "Virtual method tables also only work if dispatching is constrained to a known set of methods, so they can be placed in a simple array built at compile time." If the vtable is generated at compile and is constrained to a known set of methods then that array is immutable! Calling that "dynamic" is an obvious misnomer! You are neither charitable nor patient. You are committing the bandwagon fallacy as we speak. You and the other 120 (and counting) angry downvoters ;) I am using the word "dynamic" to actually mean dynamic! I am not going to define it. Use your judgment. Dynamic is NOT static. I am not asking you to "educate me", or to tell me I am right; or wrong. I am asking you to understand the sort of programming language design I have in mind! Either you understand; or you don't.

LAC-Tech 5y ago

> It's pretty clear at this point you don't understand what dynamic dispatch means. Terms in computing are so overloaded that these days I try[0] and never correct anyone on how they use a term. Instead I ask them to define it, and debate off of that definition. So instead of downvoting this guy for using different terminology - we can ask him what he means and just have a discussion. [0] alright I don't always succeed but it's an ideal to strive for

ukj 5y ago
This is a commendable approach. Computation is a general, abstract and incredibly useful idea disconnected from any particular model of computation (programming language). Different languages are just different models of computation and have different (desirable, or undesirable) semantic properties independent from their (trivial) syntactic properties. It's this sort of angry dogmatism which prevents people from talking about programming language design. Not for a second do they pause to think their own understanding may be limited.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  > It's this sort of angry dogmatism which prevents people from talking about programming language design. The dogmatism demonstrated today was in your comments, ukj. Your inability to understand that your non-standard use of terms makes it impossible for others to communicate with you in any effective way made this a remarkable farce of a conversation or debate.
  - ukj 5y ago
    There is no such thing as a "standard" model of computation, and therefore no such thing as "standard definition" or use of computation. There is only the model you (and your tribe) believe is "standard" implicitly. Do you actually understand that? I kinda thought navigating the inherent ambiguity of all language (programming or natural) is a fundamental skill for software engineers. Communication is indeed impossible when you think you possess the "right" meaning of words. Oh... by the way, somebody capable of understanding/listening has just informed me that what I am actually talking about is closer to multiple dispatch than dynamic dispatch. Multiple dispatch is, in fact, more dynamic than "dynamic dispatch". Hilarity ensues.