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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/10 Message-ID: <5b4eqq$abt@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 208841712 references: <5acjtn$5uj@news3.digex.net> <32D11FD3.41C6@wi.leidenuniv.nl> <5b2pmn$ntc@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >There are times when you want optimizations yet you want to avoid >cross-module optimizations, but those should be exceptions; >automatic cross-module inlining ought to be the norm. > > I think not. You can only do cross-module inlining if every compilation > potentially recompiles code for the entire application. This seems out > of the question in large applications. During the edit-compile-debug cycle, you want rapid turn-around, and so you don't want optimizations (except for those that actually speed up the turn-around time). Then when you're doing integration testing, when you can afford to compile with optimization, you can usually also afford cross-module inlining. > It seems to me here that the Ada approach is just right. Fergus, if you > are aware of the Ada approach, what would you change? The Ada language design is OK; I consider having "private" sections in package specifications to be a fairly low-level, implementation-oriented, and inelegant approach, but I understand its advantages. What I would change is the implementations: specifically, I'd like to see a cross module inlining option for GNAT. -- Fergus Henderson | "I have always known that the pursuit WWW: | of excellence is a lethal habit" PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.