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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,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: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,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: clovis@wartech.com Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/31 Message-ID: <5abtlq$f3o@masters0.InterNex.Net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 207041870 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32A71BC6.2D857063@arscorp.com> <32A82AFE.255A@possibility.com> <58bq8c$3n6@news.utdallas.edu> <32AA207E.3199@deep.net> <32B3F45C.5140@deep.net> <32B81DA7.6D08@deep.net> <59vr2s$55r@masters0.InterNex.Net> <01bbf4f0$215a1220$298fa1ce@pendleto> organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333 reply-to: clovis@wartech.com newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In , edward@magicmouse.com (Edward de Jong) writes: Excellent analysis. Thanks for sharing it. And it is true -- without a LOT of sideline documentation, pure object code IS the most difficult to comprehend and maintain. >There is nothing comical at all in the comparison between WordStar and >Microsoft Word. WordStar was the creation of one genius, Rob Barnaby, >whom I met when Micropro bought my clone of WordStar, written in C, which >became WordStar 2000. It took 12 programmers, myself included, one entire >year, and about 100,000 lines of code to surpass the work of just one man, >working in macro assembler. But let me tell you, macro assemblers are >very clever tools; they can do amazing things; you can have multiple >levels of macros, which are effectively miniature compilers, which output >executable code, with the lowest possible overhead. > >In the hands of a genius, assembler can do amazing things in tiny spaces; >that is why Barnaby could do so much in so little room. To implement a >word processor that could run (with overlays), in a total space of 64kb, >that had mail merge, all the printer drivers embedded in it, as well as >controlling the screen in an optimal way, should be acknowledged for the >amazing feat that it was. > >The reason macro assembler can be MORE POWERFUL than so-called higher >level languages is that by using multiple levels of macros, you are >creating a multi-level programming language, while most high level >languages actually operate on a single or double level of abstraction. > >The real practical reasons for not using assembler are: > 1) geniuses are rather rare > 2) the resulting product has a lot of lines of code (4 to 10 times more >than high level languges), which makes it harder to understand > 3) the resulting product is almost impossible for another person to >understand, because of the multi-level programming involved. > >-- >edward@magicmouse.com >author of Flying Colors for Macintosh, Pippin, and Windows platforms