Re: C v C++

["Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com>]

"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote in
message news:9u851b$7d$1@nh.pace.co.uk...
> Code bloat seems to me to be (at least in part) a consequence of Object
> Oriented Design. I recall hearing someone at a TriAda conference years ago
> describing OOD as: "If you want a banana, you have to take the whole
> gorilla." You may gain something with OOD, but you sacrifice something for
> it as well. I'd see this as a problem for both Ada95 and C++ when you use
> the OO model so I would be reluctant to pick on C++ for it.

For poorly-done OOD, yes.  Otherwise I do not find it inherent.  There
certainly is the school of thought that absolutely every "class" must be
perfectly complete for every conceivable use, and for some things I buy that
and it could be a factor, but in general I do not.  In the bad old days
there was no way to remove unused routines, so all the code in a package
would be included in the executable -- and that can certainly lead to
bloat -- but those days are gone.

For my 2 cents code bloat is a result of poor design and poor management
(e.g. feature/requirements creep).


--
---
Patrick Rogers                       Consulting and Training in:
http://www.classwide.com          Real-Time/OO Languages
progers@classwide.com               Hard Deadline Schedulability Analysis
(281)648-3165                                 Software Fault Tolerance