Re: Static vs. dynamic binding

David L Moore <>
30 Jan 1997 22:12:10 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Static vs. dynamic binding syu@ice.Lakeheadu.Ca (1997-01-26)
Re: Static vs. dynamic binding (David L Moore) (1997-01-30)
Re: Static vs. dynamic binding (Eduardo Rene Rodriguez Avila) (1997-01-30)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: David L Moore <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 30 Jan 1997 22:12:10 -0500
Organization: Netcom
References: 97-01-214
Keywords: linker

sicheng wrote:
> Hi! all, is here any expert familiar with the topic of "static/dynamic
> binding" within more languages? I am gathering information regarding
> every aspects of this topic, but I only know the details of s/d
> binding in Borland C++, how about java, smalltalk ..... ? any
> contribution or comments will be highly appreciated.

Let me get down my soapbox.

Dynamic binding is one of those terms that means different things to
different people. You will often hear dispatching (as in OO languages
like Ada and in virtual functions in C++) referred to as dynamic
binding. This really is not true, since the names of all the functions
are known at link time - the only issue is which function you will call.
What you want to know about I think, is function call dispatching.

The term Dynamic Binding should (in my view) be reserved for the case
where the identifier to name mapping is done at run time. Examples are
SNOBOL, in which new identifiers can be defined at run time, and in
dynamic linking of shared library calls.

(Unfortunately the misue of terms is endemic - look what happened to
"thunk" and at the loss of the distinction between virtual memory
and paged memory)

(Checks safety of ladder, descends from soapbox)

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.