Thread: So, "object-oriented" programming...

Originally Posted by MutantJohn

C++ just has the advantage that it allows you to write efficient functionally-inspired code.

Yes, I think this is good, especially with C++11 (or 12?), lambda expressions and move-semantics. I love C++ for that fact that it gives the programmer complete control over the efficiency of this programs, and not depending on some "optimizing" compiler. In many cases, the programmer, given that he or she knows the complexity of his or her constructs. can develop an "optimized" solution.. whether that be time, or space.

Programmers should not delegate "optimization" to their compilers. That's what I hate about Haskell, and love about C++. C++ at least forces one to consider their logic, and not punting it off to the compiler. The compiler is just another program, written by Humans (TM), it is not infallible. Also, in many cases, I am of the belief that "optimizing" compilers are a fad.. and that we programmers should write our programs to a very specific semantic.

We don't rely on some "God" who optimizes our code for us... I'm sorry, but full-program analyzing compilers are a myth. Are you smarter than your compiler? Yeah, then let it don't do anything weird under your nose! We need complete control. But we also need abstraction (controlled).

Back to the main topic, I don't believe OO solves any of real human software development problems, at least no more than a functional or non-class procedural approach would.

Originally Posted by MacNilly

Programmers should not delegate "optimization" to their compilers. That's what I hate about Haskell, and love about C++.

Really? Do you turn off optimizations when you build the final binaries of your program? For moderate sized programs it can make quite a difference in size or speed. Optimizing yourself would require knowing which machine instructions to use, allocate registers yourself, reorder instructions to get the most out of your clock cycles, etc. Even if you have the know-how, do you really want to do such optimization work by hand for the entire program?

Originally Posted by c99tutorial

Really? Do you turn off optimizations when you build the final binaries of your program?cget the most out of your clock cycles, etc. Even if you have the know-how, do you really want to do such optimization work by hand for the entire program?

I don't give a ........ about compiler optimizations... most of the ones I've studied can be had by "not being an idiot", and paying attention to the language semantics: The more simple these are, with given efficiency contracts, the more better I can develop my program, given those constraints.

Any idiot that depends on their "compiler optimizations" is just that...

The aforementioned things like

get the most out of your clock cycles, etc.

.. a waste of time

Originally Posted by c99tutorial

Really? Do you turn off optimizations when you build the final binaries of your program? For moderate sized programs it can make quite a difference in size or speed. Optimizing yourself would require knowing which machine instructions to use, allocate registers yourself, reorder instructions to get the most out of your clock cycles, etc. Even if you have the know-how, do you really want to do such optimization work by hand for the entire program?

Exactly. DO you think a stupid compiler can figure that out.. no, I didn't think so.

EDiT: Hey, maybe you can write a super-efficient compiler than just does "THe Best ........ing Thing" (TM). UNtil then, STFU

Originally Posted by MacNilly

Exactly. DO you think a stupid compiler can figure that out.. no, I didn't think so.

Actually, compilers are written by people who are intimately familiar with processor architectures, and yes, they can figure that out. Build a program with GCC, using only your "don't be an idiot" optimization method, with no compiler optimizations enabled. Compare its performance to the same program built with -O3. You will see that you are objectively wrong.

Originally Posted by MacNilly

EDiT: Hey, maybe you can write a super-efficient compiler than just does "THe Best ........ing Thing" (TM). UNtil then, STFU

I doubt any of us in this thread can, but the people who write compilers are much smarter than you or I, and they know what they're doing.

Telling someone to "STFU" when you disagree with them is not constructive, and destroys any credibility you might have had (and I'm being generous here, suggesting that you had any to begin with). It's pretty clear that you don't actually understand object oriented design and programming, or maybe even programming in general, given your attitude toward optimizing compilers. It's also clear that you're not interested in what anyone else thinks about it, as evidenced by your suggestion that people who disagree should simply "STFU." Either learn some humility, or don't ask loaded questions in places where you won't like the answers.

You're right... I apologize. To Elkvis and c99tutorial. I hope you will accept it.

Maybe somebody should close the thread, I seemed to have botched it.