Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: objective c Message-ID: <6590095@hplsla.HP.COM> Date: 13 Apr 89 18:15:27 GMT References: Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA Lines: 32 Never one to resist flogging a dead horse -- I couldn't help but notice [a different] Wiener wrote a Nov JOOP article on the "latest and greatest" "Stepstone" ObjC 4.0 compiler. So I couldn't help comparing the published numbers to a simple "Integer" class I wrote in C++: [Time to perform 400000 "Int Class" assignment loops] Richard Wiener / Sun 3 workstation / ObjC 4.0 dynamic binding elapsed time for static Ints: 8.340 seconds elapsed time for dynamic Ints: 11.820 seconds Richard Wiener / Sun 3 workstation / ObjC 4.0 static binding elapsed time for static Ints: 4.140 seconds elapsed time for dynamic Ints: 11.820 seconds Jim Adcock / HP 320 workstation / ATT C++ with Gnu CC backend elapsed time for static Ints: 0.552 seconds elapsed time for dynamic Ints: 0.564 seconds -- While I don't know the relative speeds of a Sun 3 workstation and an HP 320, I believe they are quite similar. It still seems safe to say that C++ remains many, many times faster than ObjC 4.0. [In C++ most of the assignment/loop time is taken by the loop increment and test, and not by the actual Int class assignment]