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: 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: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: jur@cs.umbc.edu (Jacqueline U. Robertson) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/27 Message-ID: <5a0niaINNlda@topdog.cs.umbc.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 206223684 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32B81DA7.6D08@deep.net> <59vr2s$55r@masters0.InterNex.Net> organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County nntp-posting-user: jur newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <59vr2s$55r@masters0.InterNex.Net>, wrote: >In <32B81DA7.6D08@deep.net>, Tansel Ersavas , in a fit of >Yes, Assembler is the minority. And as a result Microsoft Word wants 120 megs on >a disk, where WordStar lived comfortably in 64k, code and data both. Word does >very little more. > >Seems we were told the truth to begin with, eh? > >Word barely runs in 8 megs of RAM. > >You started out talking about waste. Why 8 megs instead of 64k? > >We have some differences of opinion here. > Well, I was with you to some extent until you got here. Code bloat is a simple trade-off for increased maintainability and extensibility. Quite simply, it's easier to maintain and extend a decently written application in high level code than it is to maintain and extend a decently written application in assembler. Why ? Because the high level language applied is easier to read, particularly for follow on developers who were not involved in the original work. The trade-off is that the assembly level application was more compact (both in disk space and in memory usage) - but harder to extend and modify. There's a reason that assembly level development is limited to small areas (such as in the limited resource milieu of deep space probes) - the trade off in favor of high level languages has generally been worth it, as increased disk space and increased amounts of RAM are economically cheaper than the 'more efficient' assembler writing. I'd guess that over time (and in this case I'm guessing a fairly long interval), machine generated applications will end up being cheaper than hand written ones for much the same reason. James A. Robertson email: jamesr@parcplace.com phone: 410 952-0471 >Regards, > >Frank