uucibg@swbatl.UUCP (3929) (01/13/90)
In article <10157@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (JAMES ADCOCK) writes: >In article <2626@tukki.jyu.fi> sakkinen@jytko.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) SAKKINEN@FINJYU.bitnet (alternative) writes: >>Since a "hello world" program has no importance, neither has its size. >>OOP is mostly there to help the building of large and complicated programs. >>A fully-fledged OO language typically needs a rather large run-time >>system, independently of the size of the "main program". >>I think that the condition, "a system that never saw anything >>in this language before", is especially pointless. > >I use the "hello world" example as one which almost everyone has experience >with -- and almost everyone has some interest in knowing the minimum >executable size associated with a language. I don't use C++ just for [ Goes on to discuss metrics such as: minimum development machine requirements minimum deployment machine requirements executable sizes execution times ] Unfortunately, many will look at such metrics as code size and execution time as the only criterion. I don't believe that anyone claims to have proven that you will end up with smaller programs using OO langauges (in their present incarnations at least: though this may in fact be possible with some of them, like C++). The "faster execution" issue seems to be hotly debated and it would certainly do some good to get some real numbers. However, IMHO, OO languages will not show benefits on small programs (in most cases). This is because the languages are used with different ends in mind than the current crop of languages (such as C in particular). But even with all that, the problem here seems to be an "apples and oranges" thing. OO languages provide more tools to the programmer for things like reusability, understandability, elegance (whatever that means), robustness/ correctness, maintainability, etc. Thus, any evaluation of <non-OO language> versus "Gwhizl" <some hypothetical OO language> cannot be a fair comparison until those things are considered. Of course, this means that reusability, correctness, etc. must be considered important. IMHO >My claim is that most of programming in any language is made of pretty >simple straightforward stuff -- assignments, flow of control, method >dispatches, etc -- hence the whole RISC revolution to do simple stuff >well. This reminds me of the assembly versus high-level programming language issue. Certainly, high-level languages weren't as efficient with machine resources as asm when they first came out (many/most/all of them still aren't today). It was the other advantages that they provided (or in the case of some of those languages: were supposed to provide) which made them such a big hit ("you mean you can get it done in 1/2 time? And a new person coming in can learn the system in 2/3 the time? I'll take it!"). >even if it *isn't* fair, it still doesn't mean that OOPLs should avoid >publishing these numbers. Because a large number of potential users >are *still* going to insist on these numbers before they plunk down their >hard earned $$$ [Or worse, before they go try to convince their bosses >to switch from C to Gwhizl] Ahhhh, the crux of the matter. I doubt you'll ever convince anyone using performance numbers. You've got to argue the other advantages. And, yes, we should try to come up with some hard numbers showing how OO languages provide benefits. I'd love to hear suggestions about how to do this, though. It seems that many of the argued advantages won't show up for some time, since they often have to do with maintainability, reusability, etc. Thus, we may not know for years whether our "gut" feelings about OO are right or wrong (whether we advocate it or disparage it). If anyone has good hard numbers, I'd *REALLY* *REALLY* like to get ahold of them (I need all the amunition I can get :-) Thanks, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian R. Gilstrap ...!{ texbell, uunet }!swbatl!uucibg OR uucibg@swbatl.UUCP One Bell Center +---------------------------------------------------------- Rm 17-G-4 | "Winnie-the-Pooh read the two notices very carefully, St. Louis, MO 63101 | first from left to right, and afterwards, in case he had (314) 235-3929 | missed some of it, from right to left." -- A. A. Milne -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: Me, speak for my company? You must be joking. I'm just speaking my mind.