Re: Time to rewrite dpkg IN IDL! :)

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:45:09PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 12:27:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > C++ may be OO, but it's not very good OO....and it tends to compile
> > into code which is both bloated and slow.
> >
> > dpkg is already far too slow on old hardware...hell, it's too slow
> > on a P200 with 200MB of RAM, now that the status and available files
> > have over 3300 packages detailed in them.
>
> Yeah, it's slow, and it's written in C.
>
> And you want to cinvince me by your un-emotional argumentation that it
> will be even slower in C++?
>
> Strange. Last time I took a look at Stroustrups language it seemed
> that it would be carefully designed to not enforce too much overhead
> on language features, and no overhead on language features not
> used. Stroustrups book goes into detail, and always mentions which
> run time overhead you have to expect when you use a certain language
> feature. Most features are only one function call away.

in theory, theory and practice are the same. in practise, they're
different.

i've always favoured practical considerations over nice theories.  

In practice, C++ programs are larger and slower than they ought to be.

craig
 
--
craig sanders