[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ~"Smalltalk is so confusing it's as bad as HYPERTEXT!~"
- To: <ravi>
- Subject: Re: ~"Smalltalk is so confusing it's as bad as HYPERTEXT!~"
- From: Bob Perez <bobp>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 12:34:15 PST
- Cc: <xanatech>
Is there a relationship between the distance a particular subclass has from
the root class, and the overhead associated with calling that subclass's
methods? That is, are there additional performance hits for successive levels
of subclassing (as there are, say, for successive levels of indirection)?
I'm curious to hear if anyone knows how ThinkC's approach differs from
AT&T C++, since I'm using the former to build my prototypes. Eventually,
I'll want to provide sample source code in straight C, but I've found
Think's Object C so wonderfully easy to learn and use, I'm considering
providing an oo-flavored sample in ThinkC source. I know it's a small part
of our market, but so many Mac developers have the product, this might be a
good way to introduce a lot of them to oo-programming in a relatively
inexpensive, painless fashion.
Anyway, I remember what I thought of C++. In contrast, using ThinkC's object
extensions has been a real kick, and I'd be willing to bet that there are a
lot of programmers out there who'd share my experience.
MarkM, what you do think? Does it make more sense to stick to the outer
extremes (straight C and C++), or does something like ThinkC's Object C
offer any advantages for building frontends?