Subj : Re: OO compilers and efficiency To : comp.programming From : Gerry Quinn Date : Thu Jul 28 2005 04:19 pm In article , gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie says... > In article <1122509436.554206.116120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, > websnarf@gmail.com says... > > Chris Sonnack wrote: > > > websnarf@gmail.com writes: > > > > So is the answer to the OP's question: you don't write code that is > > > > really C code, but rather, you translate it to C++ equivalents that > > > > behaves exactly like it was C code, so that the compiler can produce > > > > the same result? > > > > > > Sure, why not? The upside of a mixed-mode language, like C++, is that > > > you can strip down to the bare essentials when necessary but also have > > > the language-supported abstraction of OOD available. > > > > This is an argument for C++ -- its not an argument for OO. Go back and > > read what the OP was asking. He's really asking, "do you need to > > abandon the ideas of OO when you need performance?" The example I > > gave, is supposed be an answer: "it seems so". > > I don't think OO is the enemy of performance, really. Some things that > the OP confuses with OO, such as getter and setter functions, chains of > calls from functions to base class functions of the same name, etc. may > be. I mean the original OP, whoever that was. The thread has drifted a bit. - Gerry Quinn .