As Ted always says, you need to test in your environment to determine the best tradeoff between performance and maintainability. Are you deploying applications in a "real-time" environment? Are you working with large arrays inside loops with 1000s of iterations? Then performance overhead is critical and wrapping native VFP functions inside your own wrappers may hurt more than help. OTOH, if wrappers can make your framework code easier to use and maintain, the benefits may outweigh the potential performance decrease.
I used to have this discussion with a non-VFP developer who worked for me for a few years. He was always going on about compiled vs. interpreted languages. If you're a human using a computer and it responds to you within a reasonable amount of time when you click something, who cares if it's using a few extra cycles to get there; it's not perceptible to you. If speed is that crucial to what you do you're writing C or whatever the current equivalent of machine code is these days; not VFP. -- rk -----Original Message----- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Dibble Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 12:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Unbearable Lightness/Heaviness of Arrays >You'll experience a reduction in performance albeit a small one for two >reasons. Every access to the array now has to first resolve the object >reference, which takes some time. More noticeably, though, is replacing >direct array function calls with a user defined method. A method call >takes some time, because VFP has to create a new stack level. I think this is the sticking point. Simple, non-redundant code seems like a good goal, but I've already got enough slow spots in my framework. I don't want to slow down anything further. Especially since I use arrays a lot. Ah well. It was a cool idea. Thanks to all who responded. This is the fun stuff. Ken Dibble www.stic-cil.org _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/DF1EEF11E586A64FB54A97F22A8BD044218D83B3B5@ACKBWDDQH1.artfact.local ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
