Brian wrote: > rlseal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>> Ugh, I wonder if the above reasoning results in too much copied code/multi >>> inheritance type conditions. >>> >>> >>> >> This is the whole problem. You are not refreshing a label every 7 >> milliseconds - you're not running a label in a tight loop several >> thousand iterations long, etc.. . The whole point of using C++ is to >> make use of object-oriented concepts and the standard library. I >> understand the concept of fast and light, but there is always a >> trade-off when making something standard, readable, and maintainable. >> There should be unit testing for each of the classes developed along >> with some timing and size information included if it's that big of a >> deal. Then we could fight over 1.42 usec vs. 1.44 usec and 16 bytes vs. >> 18 bytes, etc... >> > > I'm not exactly sure whatthis has to do with c++ itself. > It has a lot to do with C++ because the complaint for using something standard (e.g. STL containers vs. pointers) always falls back on code bloat and speed. I would sacrifice a bit of time and size for the ability to use concepts that make the code more standard and maintainable. > First and foremost should be to establish orthogonal policies > that make sense. The more truly modular and pluggable classes are the easier > they are to test & debug. > I most definitely agree with this part.
Ryan _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
