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,c7b637f8b783b7c X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,c7b637f8b783b7c X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 107d55,c7b637f8b783b7c X-Google-Attributes: gid107d55,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,c7b637f8b783b7c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,c7b637f8b783b7c X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,c7b637f8b783b7c X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: not@my.address.net Subject: Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Date: 1997/08/28 Message-ID: <5u4ful$r9l$1@newbabylon.rs.itd.umich.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268787322 References: <34023FC9.59E2B600@eiffel.com> <872652486.17137@dejanews.com> <5u0nil$atg@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Organization: University of Michigan ITD News Server Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.tech,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-08-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 08/27/97, Fergus Henderson wrote: > >Objective-C was not better than C++. Objective-C was a basically >"Smalltalk in C": a dynamically typed OOP language embedded inside C. >In my humble opinion, this is not a good match. To the best of my >knowledge, Objective-C lacked static checking and was much less efficient >than C++. > I think that Objective-C from Stepstone permitted both static type checking and static binding as an option. Objective-C from NeXT permits static type checking. NeXT also introduced Objective-C "Protocols" which were used by Sun as a model for Java "Interfaces". In either case you can determine the "type" of an object without knowing it's class. Objective-C is somewhat slower than C++. I've seen empirical estimates that place the difference in the range of 10%. If you need that extra 10% performance, and you can design a nice efficient system and implement it successfully using C++, go ahead. Taligent had a lot of trouble with sytem design using C++. But maybe you can do it. Let me know how you make out after you've profiled your C++ code and you want to make some changes in the design in order to improve performance. You might find it's possible to arrive at a more efficient design, given the same resources, with a language that supports dynamic type checking, notwithstanding the overhead imposed by the run time environment. -- invert: umich.edu jdevlin insert: shift "2"