Subj : Re: OO compilers and efficiency
To   : comp.programming
From : Rob Thorpe
Date : Wed Jul 20 2005 04:47 am

Chris Dollin wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
>
> > Chris Dollin wrote:
> >> Brian wrote:
> >> > Anyway, those are some of the things that kind of nag at me.
> >> > I think it's a safe statement to say C can beat any OO compiled
> >> > program pound for pound given the same programmer skill and
> >> > adherence to language goals.
> >>
> >> There are so many assumptions buried there that I can only
> >> mention a few.
> >>
> >> * OO languages typically [ie, Java] come with GC. C doesn't.
> >>   This can make an enormous difference to the simplicity of OO
> >>   code. That means that OO programs can tackle larger problems
> >>   with the same-ish amount of engineering effort  - they can
> >>   out-produce the C programmer before the code efficiency is
> >>   an issue. (What the OO program loses in GC costs is roughly
> >>   the same as what the C program loses in memory-management
> >>   costs, eg copying.)
> >
> > I think your other reasons are stronger than this one.  Although C
> > doesn't come with a GC it's very simple to add one, you can download
> > the Boehm garbage collector and use it for example.
>
> If the C program wasn't written with GC in mind, randomly using
> the Boehm GC (and tweaking malloc/free) won't get you the advantages
> of a GCd language.
>
> If the C *was* written with GC in mind, then you're writing in a
> C-like GCd language with the usual benefits - assuming that you
> don't fall over any of the conservative GC assumtions. But that
> language isn't really C any more.

I would say that it is C, since the GC doesn't change the meaning of
the language, it's just a library albeit an elaborate one.  But that's
only a minor difference in point-of-view.  My main point was that GC is
not tied to OO, or vice versa.

.