[fpc-devel] Pointer cache for fast class/pointer access.

[Marcos Douglas]

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Skybuck Flying <skybuck2000 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Hans-Peter Diettrich
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 14:56
> To: FPC developers' list
> Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Pointer cache for fast class/pointer access.
>
>
> Skybuck Flying schrieb:
>
>> vValue := mDepth1.mDepth2.mDepth3.mValue;
>
>
> "
> You can implement such a funny hierarchy in any language. So what?
> "
>
> For the performance of the line of code above it matters if TObject or
> Object is used.
>
> Or as somebody else mentioned: object vs class.

I said that. ;-)

> I could give a full test program which illustrates it ;) (It's kinda big
> though, a generator).
>
> But if you know anything about assembler you should be able to figure that
> stuff out yourself ?!? ;) :)
>
> But perhaps you more of a "parser/text guy" and less of an "assembly/binary
> guy" ? ;)
>
> Anyway what remains is the question: what's different between object and
> class or Tobject and object when it comes to capabilities.
>
> Also the slightly different syntax is kinda a shame... this would make it a
> little bit difficult to flip/flop between different "object models".
>
> Flexible software is nice for when requirements change so it would be nice
> if changing object model would be easy to do to a certain degree ;)
>
> For example:
>
> MyClass := TMyClass.Create;
>
> versus
>
> MyObject.Create;
>
> ^ Why this difference ? It makes it less flexible to flip/flop :(

TMyClass.Create: this is a call to the class constructor.
MyObject.Create: this is a call to a method.

Object type is (very) older than Class type and I don't think the core
team wanted some similarity between Object and Class types. Everybody
prefer classes so, the Object type was forgotten.

I thinking if the Object type will be deprecated in the future... I hope not.

Marcos Douglas