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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public 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 From: markj@netaccess.co.nz Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/03 Message-ID: <5aiks1$b3r@granny.mac.co.nz>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 207344970 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32B81DA7.6D08@deep.net> <59vr2s$55r@masters0.InterNex.Net> <5a0niaINNlda@topdog.cs.umbc.edu> <5a29dv$hb2@masters0.InterNex.Net> organization: NetAccess Internet Services reply-to: markj@netaccess.co.nz newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In <5a29dv$hb2@masters0.InterNex.Net>, clovis@wartech.com writes: >In <5a0niaINNlda@topdog.cs.umbc.edu>, jur@cs.umbc.edu (Jacqueline U. Robertson) writes: > >>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. I agree. >>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. >This is also wrong. The reason that "paradigms" proliferate is obvious; people, and >managers in particular, are trying to get something for nothing. Compared to >procedural languages, it takes 3 lines of assembler to equal one line of, say, >PASCAL stuff. And it generally takes 5 lines of PASCAL to equal a line of Smalltalk >in a properly constructed hirearchy. Any operation one needs to do should not >be a series of lines, but a single method, and a single message sent to the instance. >There are exceptions, but with the compactness come other problems. I think you people are forgetting about the portability issue. I would always write in C rather than assembler because I can run the same code on many different CPU's. Also I'm lazy. Why should I bother to learn N assembly languages when I only need to learn 1 high level language, that is, C. Cheers, +------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | EMBEDDED SYSTEMS SOFTWARE ENGINEER | Specialist In: | | Mark Jordan TC, NZCE, BE, MIEEE | - DSP Applications | | Top Quality Work, Reasonable Rates | - Microprocessor Applications | | markj@netaccess.co.nz | - Reusable Software Libraries | +------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+