Search:

No you are wrong. The call of a virtual function is not resolved (or bound as it's also called) at compiletime. The type checking can be performed at compiletime unless a downcast is involved. But...

No.

Polymorphism is polymorphism and it serves the purpose of polymorphic behaviour regardless of when it's resolved, be it at compiletime or runtime.

The only difference is that the CRTP...

This is a flawed argument.

If devirtualization were required by the standard then it would cease to be an implementation detail.

Well, the lack of a devirtualization optimization in most C++ compilers isn't a bug really.

But it's a pity it's not there already though. And as I've said Java has had it for ages (at least ten...

Could you please expand on that. It's complicated stuff you know. :)

That's right.

Superbonzo is opposing OO as a design methology mainly for efficiency reasons and for them devirtualization is the worst nightmare because it renders the efficiency argument moot.
...

Note that devirtualization optimization cannot make virtual functions calls static if they really need to be dynamic. So devirtualization doesn't remove the need for dynamic calls. It just avoids...

Well, with devirtualization the OO approach is as efficient as CRTP.

Do you understand that?

I don't think very many finds it attractive in the sense they use it whenever they can. At least not among OO programmers. I think most view CRTP as a legacy idiom (to be pulled out of the trick bag...