Talk:Dynamic dispatch

Merge with dynamic binding?
This article overlaps significantly with dynamic binding; maybe the two articles should be merged? -Andyabides 22:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Both are to do with how a bit of code is found for a given invokation, but they are different ideas. I'm not sure that the articles make it clear enough, but dynamic dispatch can occur through mechanisms like RPC (at least from an architecture perspective) and dynamic binding can also occur at load time through the choice of a given library (for example switching between DLLs). When looking at platforms/languages the two are seperate and a given platform may support one or the other, both or none. I'll have a think about adding something to the two articles about this.   — KayEss | talk 11:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the difference between those two concepts should me made very clear in both articles. I added to this article a link to Dynamic binding (and vice-versa) so that readers from both articles relate the ideas and help clarifying the difference in future edits. --Antonielly (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Years later, I add a merge proposal to both article to point at that either these article should be merged or their content should point out explicitly their differences. --Abdull (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, a sentence in the lead of each explaining how it's different from the other would be very helpful. I'd try to write it but I don't quite understand the difference. Would someone please explain? --Pnm (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Simply put -- emphatic no - similar is not identical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.131.188.5  (talk • contribs)  16:07, 18 October 2010


 * Can you then point out the differences then please? 6 years on, the two articles still look the same to me. If the situation does not change, dynamic binding should become a subsection here, and currently it would barely amount to one line of extra info. 205.228.108.185 (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification in Single and multiple dispatch
For an uninformed reader, the section that explains how multiple dispatch can be achieved by inspecting the type of parameter y can be mistaken for method overloading. I feel that a statement to the effect of "Unlike method overloading, the type of the object y is known at runtime" could serve to clear the water. Moreover, I'd note that, with method overloading, the method to call is decided at compile time based on the declared type of the argument, as opposed to its runtime type. Viridium 16:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)