www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - OO usage count

reply Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?
I'm asking as I just found a basic problem with a simple OO construct.

(I think - check the bugs group
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3424
subject "Interface implementation on derived class")

count me.
(I guess Kris is another)

Ant
Apr 03 2005
next sibling parent reply Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Ant wrote:

 So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?


I use it with practically all programs. Except some 2-page 
quick-and-dirty stuff.

But it's not a religion. It's just practical for some things, and 
impractical for others, where I don't use it.

Mostly it just "comes by itself" whether or not.
Apr 04 2005
next sibling parent reply "Carlos Santander B." <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:
Georg Wrede wrote:

 Ant wrote:
 

 So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?


 
 
 I use it with practically all programs. Except some 2-page 
 quick-and-dirty stuff.
 
 But it's not a religion. It's just practical for some things, and 
 impractical for others, where I don't use it.
 
 Mostly it just "comes by itself" whether or not.


Ditto.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

JP2, you'll always live in our minds
Apr 04 2005
parent "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:16:19 -0500, Carlos Santander B.  
<csantander619 gmail.com> wrote:

 Georg Wrede wrote:

 Ant wrote:


 So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?


   I use it with practically all programs. Except some 2-page  
 quick-and-dirty stuff.
  But it's not a religion. It's just practical for some things, and  
 impractical for others, where I don't use it.
  Mostly it just "comes by itself" whether or not.


 Ditto.


Ditto also.

Regan
Apr 04 2005
prev sibling parent jicman <jicman_member pathlink.com> writes:
Georg Wrede says...

Ant wrote:

 So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?


I use it with practically all programs.


Ditto...


But it's not a religion. It's just practical for some things, and 
impractical for others, where I don't use it.


Ditto...


Mostly it just "comes by itself" whether or not.


Ditto...  It needs to feel right.

Sometimes people get into a OO Religion where they would make a class for
something that would make no sense like i = 3;  And they write 5 lines of code
to write something that could be done in one line of code.  So, I love OO, but
when it applicable, "but it's not a religion," as Georg said.  Back when I
started coding, 1981, we use to change codes of the apple IIe machine language
games to make them faster or slower, etc.  I did some c, back then and PL/I and
Pascal and RPG.  None of these were OO languages.  But, I like to welcome
positive changes and OO is a positive change for programming.  But not in a way
that **everything** needs to be OO.

Am I talking too much? :-)  Sorry.

jicman
Apr 08 2005
prev sibling parent reply Antonio Monteiro <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
Ant wrote:

 So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?
 I'm asking as I just found a basic problem with a simple OO construct.


Only 4 of us... that's way simple thing still have bugs.
well, I still have to show it...

Ant
Apr 04 2005
next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:35:32 -0400, Antonio Monteiro wrote:


 Ant wrote:

 So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?
 I'm asking as I just found a basic problem with a simple OO construct.


 
 Only 4 of us... that's way simple thing still have bugs.
 well, I still have to show it...
 


I'm developing a library using OO. This has been a learning experience for
me, as I've only played and dabbled in OO before. Now I'm getting serious. 

After a few dead-end routes, I've got the library working at an
alpha-status now. The most obvious difference between using the OO paradigm
and using a procedural one is that OO is really, really, really, slow.
About 27 times slower than the equivalent *interpreted* programs. There's
an awful lot of function calls happening to get nearly anything done. Of
course, that could be because my factoring etc is all wrong ;-)

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
http://www.dsource.org/projects/build/ v1.19 released 04/Apr/2005
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FrontPage
5/04/2005 2:49:09 PM
Apr 04 2005
parent reply Lars Ivar <Lars_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <1sspdo44298v2$.h7o989y92s4q.dlg 40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:35:32 -0400, Antonio Monteiro wrote:


 Ant wrote:

 So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?
 I'm asking as I just found a basic problem with a simple OO construct.


 
 Only 4 of us... that's way simple thing still have bugs.
 well, I still have to show it...
 


I'm developing a library using OO. This has been a learning experience for
me, as I've only played and dabbled in OO before. Now I'm getting serious. 

After a few dead-end routes, I've got the library working at an
alpha-status now. The most obvious difference between using the OO paradigm
and using a procedural one is that OO is really, really, really, slow.
About 27 times slower than the equivalent *interpreted* programs. There's
an awful lot of function calls happening to get nearly anything done. Of
course, that could be because my factoring etc is all wrong ;-)


I'm usually using OO, unless the program is very small. With D I've been more
and more doing both procedural and OO in the same project, the pure OO is
usually to impractical. Whether this has to do with D shortcomings, I'm not sure
of yet.

Lars Ivar
Apr 06 2005
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:12:21 +0000 (UTC), Lars Ivar wrote:


 In article <1sspdo44298v2$.h7o989y92s4q.dlg 40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:35:32 -0400, Antonio Monteiro wrote:


 Ant wrote:

 So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?
 I'm asking as I just found a basic problem with a simple OO construct.


 
 Only 4 of us... that's way simple thing still have bugs.
 well, I still have to show it...
 


I'm developing a library using OO. This has been a learning experience for
me, as I've only played and dabbled in OO before. Now I'm getting serious. 

After a few dead-end routes, I've got the library working at an
alpha-status now. The most obvious difference between using the OO paradigm
and using a procedural one is that OO is really, really, really, slow.
About 27 times slower than the equivalent *interpreted* programs. There's
an awful lot of function calls happening to get nearly anything done. Of
course, that could be because my factoring etc is all wrong ;-)


 
 I'm usually using OO, unless the program is very small. With D I've been more
 and more doing both procedural and OO in the same project, the pure OO is
 usually to impractical. Whether this has to do with D shortcomings, I'm not
sure
 of yet.


I've got it down to only 5 (five) times slower now ;-) Mainly through some
optimization (removing redundant copying). I'm now playing with the
'package' attribute to enable further optimizations, but at the cost of
increased module bindings (i.e. increased maintenance costs).

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
6/04/2005 5:24:48 PM
Apr 06 2005
parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
 I've got it down to only 5 (five) times slower now ;-) Mainly through some
 optimization (removing redundant copying). I'm now playing with the
 'package' attribute to enable further optimizations, but at the cost of
 increased module bindings (i.e. increased maintenance costs).


I'd be surprised if declaring functions as 'package' significantly improves 
things. Have you tried the -gt flag to see where the bottle-neck is?
Apr 06 2005
parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:15:23 -0400, Ben Hinkle wrote:


 I've got it down to only 5 (five) times slower now ;-) Mainly through some
 optimization (removing redundant copying). I'm now playing with the
 'package' attribute to enable further optimizations, but at the cost of
 increased module bindings (i.e. increased maintenance costs).


 
 I'd be surprised if declaring functions as 'package' significantly improves 
 things. Have you tried the -gt flag to see where the bottle-neck is?


Duh? I know that *just* by using the 'package' attribute one doesn't
magically get any performance. But by using it, I can have one class
directly see the contents of another without having to be polite about it.
So instead of class Foo asking for a copy of Bar's data, Foo can just go in
and grab what it needs.

And yes, I've used the -gt to get the improvements I've so far made.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
7/04/2005 1:54:04 AM
Apr 06 2005
prev sibling parent Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <d2t4h6$vpn$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Antonio Monteiro says...


Looks my setup on my new news cliente uses 'Antonio Monteiro'
Poor Matthew, another one hey?! Sorry, didn't mean to...

Ant



 Apr 05 2005