Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!eosvcr!aew Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: The Emperor Strikes Lethe From: aew@eosvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Alan Walford) Distribution: world Message-ID: Date: Mon, 08 Apr 91 09:11:21 PDT Organization: Eos Systems Inc, Vancouver, B.C., Canada >From: guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes many obviously flaming things ... [stuff deleted] > 5) How does one tune an OO program? > >Well, the way you tune any other program. The program structure itself has >to absorb information about how it is being used. Since OO programs are >bigger and slower because so much of the development scaffolding is left in >the runtime image more of this usage information has to be put into the >program. Thus, the complexity of the program increases due to programmer >laziness. Of course, since increased complexity means more programmers and >job security for existing programmers the reward for this laziness is >continued employment. Nice scam. [stuff deleted] >9) Can you get the development system out of the production system? > >Nope. The uniform response of the OO community to the runtime overhead >problem is "buy a bigger machine" or, in translation, "the hardware guys will >have to save our butts again". It seems to come as a shock to OO programmers >that the folks buying these machines expect to be the beneficiaries of the >hardware curve not the programmers ... afterall it's their money. People who >buy cmoputer to solve their problems don't expect the curve to be eaten up >(and then some!) by having to constantly slog through leftover >development-time scaffolding. (Do you know what happens to surgeons who >leave the tools of their trade inside their patients?) OOP imposes a runtime >tax that end-users aren't interested in paying even with weak excuse that the >tax pays for more frequent updates since it makes maintenance easier. >End-users don't want more frequent updates; they want it right in the first >place. >The OO community will be forced to discover that software consumers won't pay >development-time taxes at runtime the same way the Lisp community did. If >you write your product in some OO language, I'll come out with a competing >product in written C or maybe even assembler, give all those cycles back to >the customer, and whip you in the marketplace. I might thank you for >defining the product and opening the market which I understand you did by >using OO technology. But a thank you and a cloud of dust is all you'll get. For my $0.02 worth. I just finished a major rewrite of a complex piece of code that was written in C. The program is called a bundle adjustment and is used in survey engineering. I rewrote in C++ using many OO concepts and virtual functions etc. I fully expected it to be much slower than the previous version but I was willing to put up with the slow down knowing I would have a better structured and more understandable program. Well, what do you know, it was over TWICE AS FAST. Yes, faster not slower. Goes to show you that if you write good code in any language whether OO or not it can be efficient. > Cheers, Scott Cheers to you to, Alan -------- Alan Walford aew@eosvcr.wimsey.bc.ca Eos Systems Inc.