Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 22:46:12 02/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2003 at 01:03:03, Matt Taylor wrote: >On February 14, 2003 at 00:07:50, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On February 13, 2003 at 23:21:57, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>Deep Junior is OOP >> >>If so then it is interesting. I don't program OOP myself, so I was pretty much >>quoting the promise of OOP from a buisness perspective in which utility and >>economy of human resources were the selling points rather than performance. >> >>Matt > >I debated performance a while back (a month or two ago I think) here with some >of the others. Object oriented code isn't necessarily that bad. (Java gives it a >bad rep because Java has notoriously bad performance.) Java is interpreted on the fly or JIT compiled. Hence, it cannot be as efficient. There are native Java compilers, but they still have to deal with GC, even at that. Even with all that, the performance penalty for Java is only 2x-4x. Some claim even less. >Another consideration is that you can write object oriented stuff in any >language -- even assembly if you really want to. I write object-oriented >libraries in C all the time. I find it distasteful to mix distinct segments of >the library together unless absolutely necessary. I have seen OO assembly and Cobol and C++ spaghetti. Where I work (CONNX Solutions Inc.) all the programming is C++ OO stuff. We write low level database drivers in C++. We outperform every competing product. My position is that there is very, very little performance penalty for OOP, and that the increase in apparent simplicity (actually, the complexity is merely hidden) helps to write more efficient code. The simplification in the model by better abstraction more than pays for itself in the long run. Writing better algorithms is dominatingly more important than writing tweaky little improvements.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.