Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!tll From: tll@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Tal Lewis Lancaster) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: Object Oriented Programming Message-ID: <1991Jan28.171644.2307@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Date: 28 Jan 91 17:16:44 GMT References: <42954@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Lines: 39 NJ_GOKEM%FANDM.BITNET@pucc.princeton.edu writes: >I am taking a seminar in Object Oriented Programming, and now the class >seems to believe that OOP is slower than Procedure-programming. >An article in Byte in 86 argues that it could be 50 % slower. I presume you are talking about execution time of the final product and not the development time of the product. >I want to help this belief out of the world! > Does anyone have any comments? >Or is C++, and Smalltalk slower than regular C ??? Yes, in most cases object oriented programs will be slower than C. One reason is they have higher overhead. That is to say they have a tendency to produce ineffiecent code. The arguments for C vs assembler speed and eiffiecency come to mind. Now most decent C compilers do a good job generating small and compact code. In most cases the performance gained by writing code in assmbler is no longer a concern (needed). >The basic argument is that the computer would spend too much time trying to >find the right "METHOD" in the tree of inherited "METHODS", since OBJECTS >inherit a lot of "METHODS". Is this TRUE? This was true for most OO languages. I don't know about now, except for Eiffel. Its scheme of dealing with "METHODS" has always been constant. It doesn't matter if there are 5 "METHODS" or several thousand. >I will make some kind of summary, and send it to the net. >Unfortunately I can only get COMP.SYS.AMIGA (thru a bitnet gateway) >Nils Gokemeijer >(NJ_GOKEMEIJE@FANDM.bitnet) >FOOBAR: Fu%!ed Up Beyond All Reality. Tal Lancaster tll@tybalt.caltech.edu