Re: Version 2.4 and beyond
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Feb 14, 2002
While we're on the subject, didnt you write 2X threaded code for
LCC? Mind sharing what/how you did this?
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
Q: Are we monetarily insane?
A: YES
----- Original Message -----
From: <kbochert at ix.netcom.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: Version 2.4 and beyond
Hi Mike Nelson, you wrote on 2/14/02 8:54:40 AM:
>I've been studying the source code with a view to adding classes--it is
>doable in priciple but the resulting interpreter will be significantly
>bigger and slower. I may do this sometime as a custom interpreter, but for
>for Rob to build in classes, etc. as a feature would be to impose OOP's
>speed penalties on those who don't use OOP. While an OOP library is slower
>than built in OOP would be, it imposes no speed penalty on non-users.
>
>-- Mike Nelson
>
I disagree. There is certainly no reason for the presence of
classes to slow down programs that don't use them. All that
happens is the addition of a few cases to a switch statement,
which adds zero time.
When using classes:
The declaration of a class just adds symbol table entries
which takes the same time as an equivalent number of
'normal' declarations.
The instantiation of a class is the same as the declaration
of a sequence.
Dot-notation need be no slower than selecting elements
of a sequence with '[]'.
Polymorphic dispatch should be slightly slower than simple
calls, involving a '[]' operation and a call_proc().
Classes might be slower to the extent that they led the
programmer to use more complicated structures than he
otherwise would.
The interpreter would be a bit larger of course. I
have implemented some convenience features and 3/4
of the code for classes. My LCC-ported interpreter
has grown from 104,480 to 108,576 bytes. (4%)
Karl Bochert
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
