|
|
|
June 6th, 2006
11:54 pm - Ok, this time I am going ook and looking for bananas, I swear...
Gaaa...
What follows is a link to an article by one of my prefered collumnists from The Delphi Magazine:
http://www.boyet.com/Articles/ProceduralThinking.html
Now, he has a good point, in a way. It is bad for OOP code to have procedural stuff thrown in, theory wise.
But aside from Java and it's dedicated interpreter chipsets that you can get, most OOP langauges have to be translated into plain old procedural machine code. If you want speed on an x86, you need procedural. Hell, if you want to use x86, you need procedural. OOP infact breaks a lot of the design features intended to speed up their processing!
(virtual methods requiring looping through arrays to find the correct branch to follow)
That's a third of the trouble with .NET/mono/CLI - it still has to be converted to be non-OO. The other two thirds are the whole JIT/garbage collection slow down, and the fact that microsoft will not reveal the source to their library code (I was so glad to read that it wasn't just me who wouldn't trust anything they couldn't read, Bucknall also agrees on that one)
I also don't agree with condeming properties. Yes, part of the point he makes is valid, however when you are dealing with a simple aspect to a class - the current size of a collection, the colour of a form, etc, they result in far cleaner code.
As long as you can't be totally OOP, trying to be totally OOP in a langauge will always annoy me. Especially when it means I can't tinker with it's internals...
|
|
|
|
|
|
LiveJournal.com |