Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!stjhmc!p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org!Lawson.English
From: Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Lawson English)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: OOP--What do you think?
Message-ID: <7646.280A798E@stjhmc.fidonet.org>
Date: 14 Apr 91 01:45:13 GMT
Sender: ufgate@stjhmc.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:300/15.88 - Tucson Apple Core, Tucson AZ
Lines: 30

schorsch@oxy.edu writes in a message to All

S>  have heard that OOP produces mush larger code (4 times or more!!) 
S> If this is so, since I am a perfectionist, I would prefer to 
S> spend the extra time using procedural techniques to write smaller, 
S> faster code than to save time and create a "clunky-slow" application. 
S> I can't help but to wonder if OOP and not increased funtionality 
S> is the cause of the huge size of many recent professional applications.(4-8

S> Meg for one app!?!?) 
S> What do people think

I don't know where "4 times or more" comes from. The Think Pascal Starter program
is 48k; the TinyEdit program is 53k. The overhead of 48k gives one a complete
menuing, printing, windowing, saving, opening, closing, etc system. The TinyEdit,
for 5k more, gives one a complete TE text editing program with all of the above
features. MacApp's overhead is said to be about 75k and gives all of the above
with more available options then the TCL's. Turbo C++/Object Pascal gives one
a TCL/MacApp clone with the same features in about 100k. 


Seems like a pretty good deal to me...


Lawson
 

--  
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!300!15.88!Lawson.English
Internet: Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org