Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!eosvcr!aew From: aew@eosvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Alan Walford) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: A Rewrite Is *NOT* An Experiment Message-ID: Date: 11 Apr 91 16:18:34 GMT References: <44.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP> Organization: Eos Systems Inc, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 48 guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: > "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!)" I can only assume thar S.G. is referring to my post regarding the rewrite of my survey software. > > 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? Ha, who has the axe to grind. It certainly isn't me. I think we all know who does. > > 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. Yes, a very large part of the efficiency gain is due to the rewrite and rethinking of the problem. I did not and I do not dispute this. My point was this: You can write an efficient program in an object oriented language using object oriented concepts. People (customers) were happy with the speed of the old implementation and are stunned at the speed of the new one. Your statements that customers will not pay for the use of object oriented language is completely unfounded. What is the axe you have to grind anyway ? > > Cheers, Scott Cheers again, Alan Alan Walford Eos Systems Inc aew@eosvcr.wimsey.bc.ca