Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!acw!guthery
From: guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: A Rewrite Is *NOT* An Experiment
Message-ID: <44.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>
Date: 10 Apr 91 23:09:11 GMT
Organization: Austin Code Works
Lines: 34

"We rewrote the X system in Y and it was k times faster.  (Therefore Y
is not only not less efficient than X and might even be more efficient!)"

Can somebody tell me why statements of this genre from the OO crowd
(or any other crowd with an axe to grind, for that matter) go
unchallenged?  Does hype like hope spring eternal?

Com'on, folks.  The fact that the rewrite ran faster says nothing at
all about the relative merits or efficiencies of X and Y.  The
efficiency of the rewrite is due at least to 1) the use of Y *AND* 2)
the fact that it was a rewrite.  For all we know, the rewrite might
have been 2k faster if X had been used.  In fact, in any rewrite
situation, I'd bet that 83.7% of the efficiency gains are due to
simply rethinking the implementation in light of now-known usage and
load patterns.

The experiment of interest, of course, is to independently rewrite
the system in X and then compare the new X implementation with the Y
implementation.

The fact that OO advocates not only let statements such as this pass
unchallenged but actually reference them in discussion tells us much more
about the advocates than it does about the technology.

							Cheers, Scott

+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ Austin Code Works +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+**+*+
NET Domain: guthery@uunet.uu.net           Post:  11100 Leafwood Lane
COM Domain: guthery@acw.com                       Austin, Texas 78750-3464 USA
US  Domain: guthery@acw.austin.tx.us       FAX:   +1 (512) 258-1342
Usenet:     {uunet}!acw!guthery            Voice: +1 (512) 258-0785
CompuServe: 70240,221                      Fidonet:  1:382/12
Packet:     N5MDE @ KB5PM                  Prodigy:  BCDG83A
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* The Source of C +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+