i don't like object oriented programming
-
Take a look at F# or another functional language. State machines and functional languages are made for each other.
I've strongly considered it. I might eventually move, but I'm familiar with C#. Maybe if they had Haskell I would have moved already. Edit: Adding, one of the drawbacks of functional programming is lack of state, and some of these equations are so complicated that state is necessary for optimization and I wonder how a functional language will handle such a thing. Recomputing or doing lazy iteration over these algorithms is grossly impractical even if it's "correct"
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
i never have. give me templates. or you may as well just give me something procedural. if i can't do generic programming i'm a sad honey bear. C# is barely adequate. And it's too object centric IMO. generics need to be able to do more. I want traits. I want the runtimes to do what i can make a C++ compiler do with templates. I probably just got the BAC up of this entire board saying that, but there it is.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Alan Kay, the father of OOP, says we're doing it all wrong and regrets using the word "object" as it emphasizes the secondary concern of OOP and ignores the primary concern of messaging. Lots of very smart computer scientists say modern OOP makes programming more complex and prone to error rather than simplifying it.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
-
Alan Kay, the father of OOP, says we're doing it all wrong and regrets using the word "object" as it emphasizes the secondary concern of OOP and ignores the primary concern of messaging. Lots of very smart computer scientists say modern OOP makes programming more complex and prone to error rather than simplifying it.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
i like message/signal based systems but most runtimes don't include some basics that should be "primitives/intrinsics" or otherwise first class, like thread safe priority queues and circular buffers and such. At the very least they should be runtime libraries provided with the base framework. But I really think if Alan Kay had wanted a message based programming environment it should have been done somewhat differently than OOP. think something a bit more along lines of parallel programming style constructs and the like, except instead of dealing with iterations of loops you're dealing with signalling. honestly, it's easy enough to create a domain-specific set of "language extension" style headers in C++ to enable this. I love C++ for that. about 1/3 of the language is the headers and because of the way the preprocessor and template system works you can create your own pseudo language constructs. There's nothing else like it in major programming languages but I really wish their was.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
based on my experience, I'd take that bet.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
well.. my assembly is a bit rusty (or almost non existent) I will let you judge... But here my test C# code
class A { public void Do(T value) { if (value is int intV) Do(intV); else DoDefault(value); } void DoDefault(T value) { Console.WriteLine("Value: " + value); } void Do(int value) { Console.WriteLine("Int: " + value); } } class Program { static void Main(string\[\] args) { A a = new A(); a.Do(1); A b = new A(); b.Do(1.0); } }here is the code for
a.Do(1)andb.Do(1.0)using go to disassembly in visual studioa.Do(1);00F70898 mov ecx,dword ptr [ebp-40h]
00F7089B mov edx,1
00F708A0 cmp dword ptr [ecx],ecx
00F708A2 call 00F70478
00F708A7 nopb.Do(1.0);00F708C3 fld qword ptr ds:[0F708E8h]
00F708C9 sub esp,8
00F708CC fstp qword ptr [esp]
00F708CF mov ecx,dword ptr [ebp-44h]
00F708D2 cmp dword ptr [ecx],ecx
00F708D4 call 00F704A0
00F708D9 nopI think there is no (assembly) if statement and direct execution of the relevant if (type) branch....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
well.. my assembly is a bit rusty (or almost non existent) I will let you judge... But here my test C# code
class A { public void Do(T value) { if (value is int intV) Do(intV); else DoDefault(value); } void DoDefault(T value) { Console.WriteLine("Value: " + value); } void Do(int value) { Console.WriteLine("Int: " + value); } } class Program { static void Main(string\[\] args) { A a = new A(); a.Do(1); A b = new A(); b.Do(1.0); } }here is the code for
a.Do(1)andb.Do(1.0)using go to disassembly in visual studioa.Do(1);00F70898 mov ecx,dword ptr [ebp-40h]
00F7089B mov edx,1
00F708A0 cmp dword ptr [ecx],ecx
00F708A2 call 00F70478
00F708A7 nopb.Do(1.0);00F708C3 fld qword ptr ds:[0F708E8h]
00F708C9 sub esp,8
00F708CC fstp qword ptr [esp]
00F708CF mov ecx,dword ptr [ebp-44h]
00F708D2 cmp dword ptr [ecx],ecx
00F708D4 call 00F704A0
00F708D9 nopI think there is no (assembly) if statement and direct execution of the relevant if (type) branch....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
there's a call in there that looks suspicious. I'd need to see the IL, not the asm.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
based on my experience, I'd take that bet.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Oops forget my previous example, I was confused.. the debug assembly code does indeed look atrocious... Gotta try to check the release version
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
there's a call in there that looks suspicious. I'd need to see the IL, not the asm.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
release code atrocious too...
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Oops forget my previous example, I was confused.. the debug assembly code does indeed look atrocious... Gotta try to check the release version
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
if there's a call in the resulting asm I'd need to see the IL to find out where it leads. I think the "is" comparison would result in a call to the CLR to type check
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
release code atrocious too...
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
yep. The jitter can only do so much with peephole optimization. That's the ugly truth. Still, the IL will tell the tale. ILDASM or visual studio's decompile option should be able to grab it.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
there's a call in there that looks suspicious. I'd need to see the IL, not the asm.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
well.. 1. I was saying the compiler will remove obvious dead end code, make sense to check the assembly 2. what interesting is not the generic method's IL, but the concrete A or A code, which I have no clue where to see at any rate, assembly code looks bad.... :(
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
well.. 1. I was saying the compiler will remove obvious dead end code, make sense to check the assembly 2. what interesting is not the generic method's IL, but the concrete A or A code, which I have no clue where to see at any rate, assembly code looks bad.... :(
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
if i can see where that CALL in the asm leads i'd know, but viewing the IL is the only realistic way to tell where it leads
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
well.. 1. I was saying the compiler will remove obvious dead end code, make sense to check the assembly 2. what interesting is not the generic method's IL, but the concrete A or A code, which I have no clue where to see at any rate, assembly code looks bad.... :(
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
you know what? I'm still kind of curious about this but I think I'm scrapping the specialization. I'm not sure what I'm going to do about maintenance though. =( This will almost double the code size.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
i like message/signal based systems but most runtimes don't include some basics that should be "primitives/intrinsics" or otherwise first class, like thread safe priority queues and circular buffers and such. At the very least they should be runtime libraries provided with the base framework. But I really think if Alan Kay had wanted a message based programming environment it should have been done somewhat differently than OOP. think something a bit more along lines of parallel programming style constructs and the like, except instead of dealing with iterations of loops you're dealing with signalling. honestly, it's easy enough to create a domain-specific set of "language extension" style headers in C++ to enable this. I love C++ for that. about 1/3 of the language is the headers and because of the way the preprocessor and template system works you can create your own pseudo language constructs. There's nothing else like it in major programming languages but I really wish their was.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
Speaking of Alan Kay and C++...
Quote:
I made up the term 'object-oriented', and I can tell you I didn't have C++ in mind. -- Alan Kay, OOPSLA '97
:-D
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
if you're using OOP as your primary paradigm in C++ you're almost certainly Doing It Wrong(TM) However, C++ is a truly multi-paradigm language and is fully capable of doing OOP programming. But like I said, if Kay had messaging in mind, OOP probably wasn't the way to go. You can implement a signal passing psuedo language extension in C++ to elegantly handle messaging passing. You can implement an OOP system too, but I wouldn't recommend that.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
if i can see where that CALL in the asm leads i'd know, but viewing the IL is the only realistic way to tell where it leads
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Generic
Do()method's IL:.method public hidebysig instance void Do(!T 'value') cil managed
{
// Code size 58 (0x3a)
.maxstack 2
.locals init ([0] int32 intV,
[1] bool V_1)
IL_0000: nop
IL_0001: ldarg.1
IL_0002: box !T
IL_0007: isinst [mscorlib]System.Int32
IL_000c: brfalse.s IL_0022
IL_000e: ldarg.1
IL_000f: box !T
IL_0014: isinst [mscorlib]System.Int32
IL_0019: unbox.any [mscorlib]System.Int32
IL_001e: stloc.0
IL_001f: ldc.i4.1
IL_0020: br.s IL_0023
IL_0022: ldc.i4.0
IL_0023: stloc.1
IL_0024: ldloc.1
IL_0025: brfalse.s IL_0031
IL_0027: ldarg.0
IL_0028: ldloc.0
IL_0029: call instance void class ConsoleApp1.A`1::Do(int32)
IL_002e: nop
IL_002f: br.s IL_0039
IL_0031: ldarg.0
IL_0032: ldarg.1
IL_0033: call instance void class ConsoleApp1.A`1::DoDefault(!0)
IL_0038: nop
IL_0039: ret
} // end of method A`1::DoA new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
you know what? I'm still kind of curious about this but I think I'm scrapping the specialization. I'm not sure what I'm going to do about maintenance though. =( This will almost double the code size.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Good luck hey ^^
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Generic
Do()method's IL:.method public hidebysig instance void Do(!T 'value') cil managed
{
// Code size 58 (0x3a)
.maxstack 2
.locals init ([0] int32 intV,
[1] bool V_1)
IL_0000: nop
IL_0001: ldarg.1
IL_0002: box !T
IL_0007: isinst [mscorlib]System.Int32
IL_000c: brfalse.s IL_0022
IL_000e: ldarg.1
IL_000f: box !T
IL_0014: isinst [mscorlib]System.Int32
IL_0019: unbox.any [mscorlib]System.Int32
IL_001e: stloc.0
IL_001f: ldc.i4.1
IL_0020: br.s IL_0023
IL_0022: ldc.i4.0
IL_0023: stloc.1
IL_0024: ldloc.1
IL_0025: brfalse.s IL_0031
IL_0027: ldarg.0
IL_0028: ldloc.0
IL_0029: call instance void class ConsoleApp1.A`1::Do(int32)
IL_002e: nop
IL_002f: br.s IL_0039
IL_0031: ldarg.0
IL_0032: ldarg.1
IL_0033: call instance void class ConsoleApp1.A`1::DoDefault(!0)
IL_0038: nop
IL_0039: ret
} // end of method A`1::DoA new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
yep, that's a call to the runtime to do a type check. See isinst? i'll consider our bet a gentleman's bet =D
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
Generic
Do()method's IL:.method public hidebysig instance void Do(!T 'value') cil managed
{
// Code size 58 (0x3a)
.maxstack 2
.locals init ([0] int32 intV,
[1] bool V_1)
IL_0000: nop
IL_0001: ldarg.1
IL_0002: box !T
IL_0007: isinst [mscorlib]System.Int32
IL_000c: brfalse.s IL_0022
IL_000e: ldarg.1
IL_000f: box !T
IL_0014: isinst [mscorlib]System.Int32
IL_0019: unbox.any [mscorlib]System.Int32
IL_001e: stloc.0
IL_001f: ldc.i4.1
IL_0020: br.s IL_0023
IL_0022: ldc.i4.0
IL_0023: stloc.1
IL_0024: ldloc.1
IL_0025: brfalse.s IL_0031
IL_0027: ldarg.0
IL_0028: ldloc.0
IL_0029: call instance void class ConsoleApp1.A`1::Do(int32)
IL_002e: nop
IL_002f: br.s IL_0039
IL_0031: ldarg.0
IL_0032: ldarg.1
IL_0033: call instance void class ConsoleApp1.A`1::DoDefault(!0)
IL_0038: nop
IL_0039: ret
} // end of method A`1::DoA new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
adding ugh - it's not only doing that, it has to box the value first! i forgot about that. Ugh. It makes a copy of the int on the heap just to do a type check No. Just no. Moral of this story is do not trust the C# compiler to significantly optimize your code.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
adding ugh - it's not only doing that, it has to box the value first! i forgot about that. Ugh. It makes a copy of the int on the heap just to do a type check No. Just no. Moral of this story is do not trust the C# compiler to significantly optimize your code.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
I have to say I am a little confused.. They have numerous intelligent blog about performance... They have fair performance comparison against C++ code with well know perf test with many close call and sometimes better performance... Though when one occasionally check the IL or assembly it seems not really good... All of that leave me quite bewildered....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
I have to say I am a little confused.. They have numerous intelligent blog about performance... They have fair performance comparison against C++ code with well know perf test with many close call and sometimes better performance... Though when one occasionally check the IL or assembly it seems not really good... All of that leave me quite bewildered....
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
last i checked it's about 30% slower and that's according to their own benchmarks. I expect real world performance to be somewhat worse, if only because of the unconscious tendency to want to test the fast parts of the code. occasionally you get better performance because of the JITs ability to do smart register allocation but the performance difference between that and C++ is barely significant in virtually all cases, and it doesn't crop up as regularly as MS would perhaps suggest. There used to be some really good in depth articles about .NET performance that covered a lot of this stuff but as .NET has matured, it seems there are less of these today. I don't normally care about cycle counting, but I do when the code has to be tight. Here it does, in my case.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.