Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

comments on Eiffel vs. Objective-C?

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Bruce Hoult

unread,
Apr 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/24/00
to
In article <39031b73...@news2.one.net>, s...@pobox.com wrote:

> Speed is simply no longer a universal factor in favoring static over
> dynamic typing. This is an outdated myth. It is true only in
> specific cases (image processing). It is not often true in developing
> business client-server apps. In this case, you are often better off
> using the dynamically typed language, but also profiling and writing
> custom primitives or modules in C or Fortran. This gives one the best
> of both worlds -- high level, elegant description of your problem
> domain and close to the metal speed.

Alternatively, you can write using a dynamic, no (or few) declarations,
style in Dylan, profile the code, and incrementally insert declarations in
the hot spots, once again getting "close to the metal speed", but without
having to use more than one language and without having to write anything
twice.

-- Bruce

Peter Kwangjun Suk

unread,
Apr 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/24/00
to
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:10:25 +1200, bruce...@pobox.com (Bruce Hoult)
wrote:

You can do something similar in Squeak. (Implement primitives using a
Smalltalk subset -> C translator) This approach of "Get it correct,
get it clean, then get it fast" is clearly the right way to go. At
user's group meetings, I always ask "who here has used a profiler?"
Of course, almost everyone raises their hand. Then I ask "Who has
never been surprised by the results?" They all go down.

This is usually enough to quiet the bit-bender types who insist on
writing everything to squeeze the last cycle from the get-go.


--
Peter Kwangjun Suk
Cincom Systems, Inc.
s...@pobox.com http://ostudio.swiki.net
(comp.lang.java.advocacy killfile poster-child -- Scene, not Herd!)

Scott McKay

unread,
Apr 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/25/00
to

Peter Kwangjun Suk wrote in message <3904747...@news2.one.net>...

>
>This is usually enough to quiet the bit-bender types who insist on
>writing everything to squeeze the last cycle from the get-go.
>


You're referring to all the people now using Java, right? ;-)

Peter Kwangjun Suk

unread,
Apr 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/27/00
to
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:24:39 GMT, "Scott McKay" <s...@mediaone.net>
wrote:

No. By "squeeze" I mean "use" not "waste". ;-) But in all
seriousness, you won't always want to be a bit-bender when writing a
complex financial app. In fact, this will be a minority case.

0 new messages