Re: Euphoria Object Oriented Programming
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> What everyone is forgetting is that if OOP was added to the Euphoria
> ( transparent or not, optional or not ) it would make executables
> even larger than they all ready are.
No kidding. ooeu compiles to about 200K larger than stock exw under
Open Watcom. That's the difference between including win32lib or not
including win32lib on a bound executable (when no win32lib routines
are used). To me, personally, this is negligible.
> The only time it will be practical is when Euphoria becomes a compiler
> and unnecessary code is strip out in the final executable.
>
> If Rob had made shrouding work or a user could include il's in 3.0
> then the extra overhead would have been strip out.
You completely lost me here. How is this not practical? What extra
overhead are you talking about here? There is no extra overhead in the
euphoria code, just in the interpreter or the runtime library.
And why are you so concerned about executable size? I find it hard to
believe that 200K would make a big difference unless you're targeting
something embedded, but then maybe eu isn't the right language for that
platform.
I can understand (and to a certain extent agree with) arguments about the
inherent value of OOP, but this doesn't seem to bear any relation to
what we're talking about here.
Matt
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
