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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: Nick Thurn Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/13 Message-ID: <32DA16C3.1245@aus.deuba.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 209506173 references: <5a0niaINNlda@topdog.cs.umbc.edu> <32C43AC8.24E2@sn.no> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: OzEmail Ltd - Australia mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: nick.thurn@aus.deuba.com 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: 1997-01-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Corey Minyard wrote: > > And the OO hit is not 10x. I have seen numbers on that for C and C++; > although I don't remember them exactly they were in the 20-30% range. > My experience with OO suggests there can be a 10x hit for *bad* design. OO code (C++) can be faster than procedural code because it is possible to use more complex algorithms (because you can hide the complexity). A *good* OO system *should* be smaller, faster and easier to understand than the procedural equivalent. The sad fact that many use OO as an excuse to wallow in complexity is another issue. cheers Nick (my opinions only) > -- > Corey Minyard Internet: minyard@acm.org > Work: minyard@nortel.ca UUCP: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com