Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!samsung!emory!gatech!udel!mmdf
From: tsarna@polar.bowdoin.edu (Tyler Sarna)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re:  Object Oriented Programming
Message-ID: <43091@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 91 17:58:28 GMT
Sender: mmdf@ee.udel.edu
Lines: 24

In article <42954@nigel.ee.udel.edu> of comp.sys.amiga.misc, 
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 want to help this belief out of the world!
>  Does anyone have any comments?
> Or is C++, and Smalltalk slower than regular C ???

Smalltalk is slower because it is interpreted.

> 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?

C++, as a compiled OOP language, finds the right method at
compile time, unless a method is declared "virtual".

------///------------------------------------------------------------
     /// Tyler "Ty" Sarna            E-Mail: tsarna@polar.bowdoin.edu 
 \\\///       "The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device..."
--\XX/---------------------------------------------------------------