Re: [boost] Flow-based programming library for Boost?

Subject: Re: [boost] Flow-based programming library for Boost?
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-15 08:39:45

Topher Cooper wrote:

> 5) /Object-Oriented vs Generic Interface?/ -- I'm not going to take sides here, but it seems unlikely that the small overhead of run-time-bound calls would make much of a difference except in the limited case of a large network of simple components (e.g., a large, low-level, logic gate system) with high sequentiality and very little I/O or logging.  In any other circumstances, I would say that the time for the indirection would be completely swamped by the component internals, by other kinds of system overhead and by I/O.  That doesn't mean that generic programming isn't preferable but only that the performance overhead of virtual calls isn't an argument for it unless one can show that the non-monitored, large logic-gate type system requiring high-performance is an important design case.

Thank you for your considerate remarks, Topher. I've isolated the part 
above because I thought it needed an immediate response, but rest 
assured that I found the rest of your email valuable as well.

My response: I think you're right and I stand corrected. Admitting 
this also makes me more consistent with my recent reply to Dave 
Abrahams [1]. I apologise, especially to Marcus Tomlinson, for making 
the presumed overhead of OOD seem more important than it is.

-Julian

______

[1] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2012/12/199196.php