From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
From: "Randy A. Ynchausti" <mickeyz@mail.davis.uswest.net>
Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ?
Date: 1997/01/11
Message-ID: <32D801E9.3816@mail.davis.uswest.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 209473371
references: <5a0niaINNlda@topdog.cs.umbc.edu> <32C43AC8.24E2@sn.no>
 <32C557F6.532C@rase.com> <5aa0eo$thd@krusty.irvine.com>
 <5aadbr$ad8@masters0.InterNex.Net> <32D64433.41C6@wi.leidenuniv.nl>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Monster Factory
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: mickeyz@mail.davis.uswest.net
newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
Date: 1997-01-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bart Samwel wrote:
> 
> > Assembler will ALWAYS be the most efficient language.  The more you
> > abstract the problem, the more you "generalize" the solution to a
> > given problem, the more you necessarily give up in efficiency.  C
> > takes a minimal 3x hit on integer arithmetic, 10x on more complex
> > stuff; and OO, because of the overhead interpreting where
> > to send things, is 10x on top of that.
> 
> IMO this number is only a valid approximation for Smalltalk and other
> dynamically typed OO languages. Statically typed languages like C++
> (hybrid, but supporting OO) and Eiffel (pure OO) achieve a much lower
> impact on performance than 10x. I won't give any numbers because I
> don't have them, but I know most number-crunching usually runs at
> very acceptable speed in these languages; a bit, but not much slower
> than C.


So what's your point.  Computer speeds are increasing rapidly.  The cost
is decreasing rapidly.  I am willing to trade your perceived efficiency
of Assembler for the ease and enjoyment of creating applications for
families of micro-processors in a high-level language.