Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!gatech!udel!ee.udel.edu
From: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: Object Oriented Programming
Message-ID: <43113@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 91 21:01:12 GMT
References: <42954@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <749@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: snow-white.ee.udel.edu

>|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.

>Yes, it is true.  Object oriented programming languages are generally slower
>than more traditional languages.  Additionally, many OOPL (like Smalltalk)
>are traditionally interpreted (slowing them down more).

Actually, many good analysies (sp?) are available in ACM SIGPLAN OOPSLA
proceedings.  Objective-C, last I heard, had the average overhead for a
method call (dynamically bound) down to 1.25 the cost of a function
call.  Many great optimizations are possible.  I seriously doubt any
commercial OOP systems run at 50% the speed of non-OOP systems.  If you
want to see what is *really* going on, I can't recommend OOPSLA
enough. There has been great progress over the last few years.
	  -- Darren

-- 
--- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---
----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, 
      Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas -----
              =+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=