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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: tbushell@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tom Bushell) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/31 Message-ID: <32c72272.204443082@news.nstn.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 206872941 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32B81DA7.6D08@deep.net> <59vr2s$55r@masters0.InterNex.Net> <5a0niaINNlda@topdog.cs.umbc.edu> <32C43AC8.24E2@sn.no> <5a6q6o$kk@masters0.InterNex.Net> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Telekinetics mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 29 Dec 1996 22:09:28 GMT, clovis@wartech.com wrote: >Paradoxically -- and this really is a paradox -- Smalltalk seems to be smaller and >faster both when dealing with a GUI. Minimum size on my VA applications, the really >small little demo things, is about 1.8 megs. But it doesn't grow much unless one is >throwing the whole kitchen sink at things. And the debugger etc etc and the whole >runtime development environment only occupies about 15 megs on disk including >a de facto text processing system, all sorts of graphical widgets, and some very >complex connection and self-maintainance code. I have noticed this also applies to Visual BASIC and Forth. These languages all use a technique that is often poo pooed by C/C++ junkies obsessed with wringing every cycle out of the CPU - they compile to a virtual machine, which is then interpreted. These runtimes tend to be very compact compared to the native code produced by conventional compilers. Of course, the execution time is slower, but this normally is only an issue for about 10% or less of the code in a typical program. This 10% can be written in C or assembler, but this is rarely necessary. I also suspect that the bloated executables often execute more slowly than they would if interpreted, because they spend so much time being swapped in an out of virtual memory. -Tom ---------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bushell * Custom Software Development Telekinetics * Process Improvement Consulting 2653 Highway 202 * Technical Writing RR#1, Elmsdale, NS B0N 1M0 (902)632-2772 Email: tbushell@fox.nstn.ns.ca ----------------------------------------------------------