Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 09:51:13 +0100 From: James Mansion <james@westongold.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Price of FreeBSD (was On Holy Wars...) Message-ID: <335C7C01.5D4F@westongold.com> References: <199704211839.LAA13979@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: > Why is it that modularity implies inefficiency to you? This is a bad > Aristotilian mean... you are using logic like: Personally I *would* expect a very modular system to have a slight efficiency hit, since it'll need to use a function call protocol to access status information that could otherwise have been accessed directly with an extern variable reference. However, that does not imply that the efficiency hit will be measurable. Given that we can question whether aggressive compiler optimisation levels or the use of (say) register based function protocols will result in a measurable performance improvement, it seems unlikely to me that the hit would be a problem, or even measurable. However, my original point was not that modularity WILL introduce a (measurable) hit, but that it is worth it EVEN IF it did. After all, a slow system with the API support you need is better than a fast system which lacks the interfaces, and also better than a fast unreliable system that has the interfaces. Perhaps this was not stated well. --------------------------------------- Westongold Ltd C++/Java Multithread development and libraries +44 1920 444284 info@westongold.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?335C7C01.5D4F>