Steve Richter wrote: >Encapsulating a string in a class enables techniques like automatic type >conversion ( ascii to ebcdic to unicode ), all the other string functions >( scan, replace, concat ). Cpu is cheap ( or it should be ). ( Also the >C++ template functionality works well with classes and functions ) > Which has nothing to do with the issue. I didn't say to not use OO techniques. I said to implement the object methods using MI calls rather than CPU brute force. I only suggested that because you indicated that this new "modern" approach was less efficient than the old approach. >Once you start trying to optimize and mix programing models you really start >to muck things up. Either program the RPG way or the OOP way. > What? Are you saying that OOP methods are dependent on being implemented in some form? Isn't that exactly the opposite of OOP theory? So if I went through the standard libraries and replaced string object methods with methods that used the MI calls, then C++ wouldn't work any more? >Steve Richter > -- Chris Rehm email@example.com Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 1 John 4:7
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.