So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?
I'm asking as I just found a basic problem with a simple OO construct.

(I think - check the bugs group http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3424 subject "Interface implementation on derived class")

count me.
(I guess Kris is another)

Ant

Ant wrote:
> So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?

I use it with practically all programs. Except some 2-page quick-and-dirty stuff.

But it's not a religion. It's just practical for some things, and impractical for others, where I don't use it.

Mostly it just "comes by itself" whether or not.

Georg Wrede wrote:
> Ant wrote:
> 
>> So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?
> 
> 
> I use it with practically all programs. Except some 2-page quick-and-dirty stuff.
> 
> But it's not a religion. It's just practical for some things, and impractical for others, where I don't use it.
> 
> Mostly it just "comes by itself" whether or not.

Ditto.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

JP2, you'll always live in our minds

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:16:19 -0500, Carlos Santander B. <csantander619@gmail.com> wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
>> Ant wrote:
>>
>>> So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?
>>   I use it with practically all programs. Except some 2-page quick-and-dirty stuff.
>>  But it's not a religion. It's just practical for some things, and impractical for others, where I don't use it.
>>  Mostly it just "comes by itself" whether or not.
>
> Ditto.

Ditto also.

Regan

Ant wrote:
> So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?
> I'm asking as I just found a basic problem with a simple OO construct.

Only 4 of us... that's way simple thing still have bugs.
well, I still have to show it...

Ant

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:35:32 -0400, Antonio Monteiro wrote:

> Ant wrote:
>> So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?
>> I'm asking as I just found a basic problem with a simple OO construct.
> 
> Only 4 of us... that's way simple thing still have bugs. well, I still have to show it...
> 

I'm developing a library using OO. This has been a learning experience for me, as I've only played and dabbled in OO before. Now I'm getting serious.

After a few dead-end routes, I've got the library working at an alpha-status now. The most obvious difference between using the OO paradigm and using a procedural one is that OO is really, really, really, slow. About 27 times slower than the equivalent *interpreted* programs. There's an awful lot of function calls happening to get nearly anything done. Of course, that could be because my factoring etc is all wrong ;-)

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
http://www.dsource.org/projects/build/ v1.19 released 04/Apr/2005
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FrontPage
5/04/2005 2:49:09 PM

In article <d2t4h6$vpn$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Antonio Monteiro says...
>

Looks my setup on my new news cliente uses 'Antonio Monteiro' Poor Matthew, another one hey?! Sorry, didn't mean to...

Ant

In article <1sspdo44298v2$.h7o989y92s4q.dlg@40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
>
>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:35:32 -0400, Antonio Monteiro wrote:
>
>> Ant wrote:
>>> So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?
>>> I'm asking as I just found a basic problem with a simple OO construct.
>> 
>> Only 4 of us... that's way simple thing still have bugs. well, I still have to show it...
>> 
>
>I'm developing a library using OO. This has been a learning experience for me, as I've only played and dabbled in OO before. Now I'm getting serious.
>
>After a few dead-end routes, I've got the library working at an alpha-status now. The most obvious difference between using the OO paradigm and using a procedural one is that OO is really, really, really, slow. About 27 times slower than the equivalent *interpreted* programs. There's an awful lot of function calls happening to get nearly anything done. Of course, that could be because my factoring etc is all wrong ;-)

I'm usually using OO, unless the program is very small. With D I've been more and more doing both procedural and OO in the same project, the pure OO is usually to impractical. Whether this has to do with D shortcomings, I'm not sure of yet.

Lars Ivar

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 07:12:21 +0000 (UTC), Lars Ivar wrote:

> In article <1sspdo44298v2$.h7o989y92s4q.dlg@40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
>>
>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:35:32 -0400, Antonio Monteiro wrote:
>>
>>> Ant wrote:
>>>> So, how many of you use the OO paradigma?
>>>> I'm asking as I just found a basic problem with a simple OO construct.
>>> 
>>> Only 4 of us... that's way simple thing still have bugs. well, I still have to show it...
>>> 
>>
>>I'm developing a library using OO. This has been a learning experience for me, as I've only played and dabbled in OO before. Now I'm getting serious.
>>
>>After a few dead-end routes, I've got the library working at an alpha-status now. The most obvious difference between using the OO paradigm and using a procedural one is that OO is really, really, really, slow. About 27 times slower than the equivalent *interpreted* programs. There's an awful lot of function calls happening to get nearly anything done. Of course, that could be because my factoring etc is all wrong ;-)
> 
> I'm usually using OO, unless the program is very small. With D I've been more and more doing both procedural and OO in the same project, the pure OO is usually to impractical. Whether this has to do with D shortcomings, I'm not sure of yet.

I've got it down to only 5 (five) times slower now ;-) Mainly through some
optimization (removing redundant copying). I'm now playing with the
'package' attribute to enable further optimizations, but at the cost of
increased module bindings (i.e. increased maintenance costs).

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
6/04/2005 5:24:48 PM

> I've got it down to only 5 (five) times slower now ;-) Mainly through some
> optimization (removing redundant copying). I'm now playing with the
> 'package' attribute to enable further optimizations, but at the cost of
> increased module bindings (i.e. increased maintenance costs).

I'd be surprised if declaring functions as 'package' significantly improves things. Have you tried the -gt flag to see where the bottle-neck is?