Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!milano!mister-curious!loo From: loo@mister-curious.sw.mcc.com (Joel Loo) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: objective c Message-ID: <2240@mister-curious.sw.mcc.com> Date: 14 Apr 89 15:50:27 GMT References: <6590095@hplsla.HP.COM> Reply-To: loo@mister-curious.sw.mcc.com (Joel Loo) Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas Lines: 29 In article <6590095@hplsla.HP.COM> jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) writes: >So I couldn't help comparing the published numbers to >a simple "Integer" class I wrote in C++: > > [ ... comparison of C++ and Obj-C ... ] > >It still seems safe to say that C++ remains many, many times >faster than ObjC 4.0. This is not a fair comparison. You might as well compare C with Lisp and publish similar figures. Programs in C++ are compiled into runnable codes similar to compiled codes of other compiler languages, most of its objectiveness is lost after compilation. Objective-C retains its objectiveness even after compilation. This implies more runtime functionalities in Obj-C and thus 'poorer' performance. BTW is there any Obj-C newsgroup or is there anybody interested in Obj-C at all? It scares me to see the whole world going for C++ when I tested both and voted for Obj-C. (I am wandering whether my judgement was wrong.) (No flame please, tell my mistakes gently) ------------------- Joel Peing-Ling Loo Voice: 512-338-3680 _ _ Email: loo@mcc.com MCC (=E) .o|o( v )+-H- o There is a 3500 West Balcones Centre Drive TO|O \ / | U | right and a Austin, TX 78759 % | V ---/ \ wrong you know? [ Disclaimer: The above article/signature reflects only my own opinion; my employer has nothing to do with it. ]