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 . I apologise, especially to Marcus Tomlinson, for making
the presumed overhead of OOD seem more important than it is.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk