Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!corton!mirsa!taloa!mimosa.unice.fr!beust From: beust@mimosa.unice.fr (Cedric Beust) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: OOP (was Re: Assembly Language & Programming) Message-ID: <67@taloa.unice.fr> Date: 16 Apr 91 09:17:33 GMT References: Sender: news@taloa.unice.fr Reply-To: beust@mimosa.unice.fr Organization: University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France Lines: 30 Nntp-Posting-Host: mimosa.unice.fr In article , nv89-nun@dront.nada.kth.se (Nicklas Ungman) writes: >Each type of language has advantages and disadvantages. But for games, I think >that the object oriented approach is the best. Mmmh... Yes and no. As you say below, this can be a very expensive price to pay for pure arcade games. I can hardly imagine Psygnosis games written in something else than ASM. But it is always possible to write most of the game in C++ and write critical parts in ASM. The real question for me is "Is there any interest in reusability for games?". Isn't there a risk to see bunches of clones invade the market, that are just different by the colors chosen and their titles? Of course, companies re-use part of their code previously written when they develop a new game, but would it be a large gain if these portions were written in C++ instead of just being simply callable ASM functions? NOTE: I like OOP, and I like ASM as well. I'm just trying to open the debate. +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Cedric BEUST University of Nice | | INET: beust@mimosa.unice.fr $whoami | | UUCP: llaor.unice.fr!arkonis!beust god (personal alias) | | -- "To be, or not to be...", | | That is illogical, captain! | | -- Spock | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+