home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news2.ios.com!usenet
- From: vlad@gramercy.ios.com (Vlastimil Adamovsky)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.java,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
- Subject: Re: Will Java kill C++?
- Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 05:44:20 GMT
- Organization: Internet Online Services
- Message-ID: <4k5009$2a6@news2.ios.com>
- References: <3134D499.653E@ix.netcom.com> <313613B2.136E@ksopk.sprint.com> <4i7qhl$ik6@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu> <4iuhi7$fmf@sundog.tiac.net> <4iumap$mn5@hustle.rahul.net> <31582A45.3742@vmark.com> <3163C031.4FB1@esec.ch> <3164888D.2B01@concentric.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-32.ts-7.hck.idt.net
- X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
-
- "Alan L. Lovejoy" <alovejoy@concentric.net> wrote:
-
- >Oliver Plohmann wrote:
- >>
- >Bzzzt! Not according to the benchmarks I've done. Go benchmark the factorial or fibonacci
- >functions (implemented recursively) in both C and a good Smalltalk. You are in for a big
- >surprise. The problem is NOT that message sends are slower than function calls
- When I was on some interviews, the local company experts tried to
- convince me that the message sends are the same as function calls.
- I am happy that at least somebody disagree with them, too.
-
- >2) Much processing/data twiddling can be done by direct access into array and
- >structure internals without the necessity of calling functions or sending messages.
- That's what OO programming is not supposed to do. But I happily
- violate all OO rules if I can get my program run more effeciently.
-
-
-
- *******************************************
- * Vlastimil Adamovsky *
- * Smalltalk, C++ and Envelop development *
- *******************************************
-
-