Re: Apple IIGS ROM 1 or ROM 3, which is better?

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <1184192374.776823.216580@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Polymorph  <polymorph69@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 12, 6:42 am, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>> In article <OYSdnXwEJbZQuQjbnZ2dnUVZ_v6tn...@comcast.com>,
>> Michael J. Mahon <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> mdj wrote:
>>>> On Jul 2, 11:23 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>With object orientation comes a surplus of indirection.  ;-)
>>
>>>> At least you stopped short of saying that's a bad thing ;-)
>>
>>>  From the point of view of speed, *avoidable* indirection is a
>>> *very* bad thing.  Memory latency is hundreds of processor
>>> cycles, at least.
>>
>>> With good data organization, reasonable cache design, and a
>>> compiler that can prefetch object instances before use, much
>>> of the *simple* indirection cost can be amortized, but compiler
>>> designers tend to be relatively ignorant of what machines must
>>> actually *do* to execute their code.  ;-(
>>
>>> -michael
>>
>> Actually, that's good news, not bad news - it means it's still worthwhile
>> to program in assembly language!!!!!   ;-)
> 
> Although I agree with you regarding a pure speed comparison, please do
> not write off OO.
> 
> All I can say to someone wishing to write a large enterprise scale
> multi-threaded application in assembly is - "Good luck! See you in 20
> years...."    ;-)

???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Get real, will you !!!

Who whould even think about writing a "large enterprise scale
multi-threaded application" .... on Apple II hardware ?????

Yes, this is comp.sys.apple2 - please don't forget that!


> And if the original developer left the code for someone else to
> maintain and enhance, I'd say "OK! time for a re-write...."
> 
> The OO paradigm was conceived to separate and control the interactions
> (interfaces) between distinct entities of a program rather than for
> speed. It also allows for the re-use of tried and tested objects.
> These ideas are invaluable when you are dealing with large complex
> applications. With modern processors and more mature compilers, the
> percentage of processing power lost to the overheads of the OO
> methodology is sufficiently small to be acceptable. Especially when
> you consider the time spent developing and maintaining such an
> application.
> 
> Just my 2c worth....  ;-)

Quite valid remarks ..... in another newsgroup, but not here!
 
> cheers,
> -p
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Grev Turegatan 40,  SE-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW:     http://stjarnhimlen.se/