Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!mimsy!mojo!russotto From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Not another NeXT defector???!!! Message-ID: <1990Nov5.182624.7104@eng.umd.edu> Date: 5 Nov 90 18:26:24 GMT References: <90308.005234KJSTEELE@MTUS5.BITNET> <1990Nov5.095930.27753@cs.umu.se> Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System) Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park Lines: 18 In article <1990Nov5.095930.27753@cs.umu.se> dvlmfs@cs.umu.se (Michael Forselius) writes: >The ONLY way to go is assembler, why do you think the current systems are >slow huh? If 7.0 was to be written in assembler then it would be half the >size and twice the speed (if there are any REAL programmers still working for >Apple). And remember that no compiler NEVER generates code as efficient as >hand-optimized assembler. I guess that the release date of 7.0 is delayed >due to OOP... It's a nice concept but not the way to go. Aside from the problem of understanding 'no compiler NEVER', I think it should be pointed out that it depends on who is doing the optomizing. Personally, I have never managed to get anything approaching efficient code out of THINKs object library-- it seems to take about 10 lines (all of which generate code) to do one simple thing. But this could be my fault, and not something inherent in OOP. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more.