|
>From: Chris Rehm <javadisciple@earthlink.net> >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. Have who implement the method using MI? The compiler ? If so, how does the compiler know to do this ? Or code MI within the "copy" method ? If so, than you still have the overhead of a function call to reach the efficient machine code. >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? The standard library is more C than C++. In C you say "strcpy( ToString, FromString)". In C++ you say "ToString = FromString" where the "=" operator is overloaded by the string class. So you are back to an inefficient function call to reach your optimized method. Result being an inefficient ( on a CPW 50 system ) operation. You are mixing OOP and RPG like coding, ending up with code that is not efficient and I would argue slightly not OOP. Steve Richter
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.