In response to Aaronaught's response to the question at:

Can't I just use all static methods?

Isn't less memory used for a static method? I am under the impression that each object instance carries around its own executable version of a non-static member function.

Regardless of how much overhead is involved in calling a static method, regardless of poor OO design, and possible headaches down the road, doesn't it use less memory at runtime?

Here is an example:

I make a vector of zero-initialized objects. Each object contains one piece of data (a triangle consisting of nine double's). Each object is populated in sequence from data read from a .stl file. Only one static method is needed. Proper OO design dictates that a method dealing with the the data directly should be distributed to each object. Here is the standard OO solution:

foreach(obj in vec) { obj.readFromFile(fileName); } 

Each obj carries readFromFile's compiled code alongside the data!

Memory is more of a concern than performance in this case, and there is a LOT of data on a constrained system.

Solutions:

1. Namespace method (great for C++ but not possible in Java)
2. One static method in obj's class. Executable code is kept in one place at runtime. There is a small overhead to call the method.
3. A parent class from which obj is derived, which contains the private method readFromFile. Call with super.callPrivateMethod() which calls readFromFile. Messy, and still some memory overhead in each object.
4. Implement readFromFile outside obj's scope, so in vec's class or in the calling class. This, in my opinion, breaks data encapsulation.

I realize for large amounts of data one explicit object for each triangle is not the best approach. This is only an example.

In response to Aaronaught's response to the question at:

Can't I just use all static methods?

Isn't less memory used for a static method? I am under the impression that each object instance carries around its own executable version of a non-static member function.

Regardless of how much overhead is involved in calling a static method, regardless of poor OO design, and possible headaches down the road, doesn't it use less memory at runtime?

Here is an example:

I make a vector of zero-initialized objects. Each object contains one piece of data (a triangle consisting of nine double's). Each object is populated in sequence from data read from a .stl file. Only one static method is needed. Proper OO design dictates that a method dealing with the the data directly should be distributed to each object. Here is the standard OO solution:

foreach(obj in vec) { obj.readFromFile(fileName); } 

Each obj carries readFromFile's compiled code alongside the data!

Memory is more of a concern than performance in this case, and there is a LOT of data on a constrained system.

Solutions:

1. Namespace method (great for C++ but not possible in Java)
2. One static method in obj's class. Executable code is kept in one place at runtime. There is a small overhead to call the method.
3. A parent class from which obj is derived, which contains the private method readFromFile. Call with super.callPrivateMethod() which calls readFromFile. Messy, and still some memory overhead in each object.
4. Implement readFromFile outside obj's scope, so in vec's class or in the calling class. This, in my opinion, breaks data encapsulation.

I realize for large amounts of data one explicit object for each triangle is not the best approach. This is only an example.

In response to Aaronaught's response to the question at:

Can't I just use all static methods?

Isn't less memory used for a static method? I am under the impression that each object instance carries around its own executable version of a non-static member function.

Regardless of how much overhead is involved in calling a static method, regardless of poor OO design, and possible headaches down the road, doesn't it use less memory at runtime?

Here is an example:

I make a vector of zero-initialized objects. Each object contains one piece of data (a triangle consisting of nine double's). Each object is populated in sequence from data read from a .stl file. Only one static method is needed. Proper OO design dictates that a method dealing with the the data directly should be distributed to each object. Here is the standard OO solution:

foreach(obj in vec) { obj.readFromFile(fileName); }

Each obj carries readFromFile's compiled code alongside the data!

Memory is more of a concern than performance in this case, and there is a LOT of data on a constrained system.

Solutions:

1. Namespace method (great for C++ but not possible in Java)
2. One static method in obj's class. Executable code is kept in one place at runtime. There is a small overhead to call the method.
3. A parent class from which obj is derived, which contains the private method readFromFile. Call with super.callPrivateMethod() which calls readFromFile. Messy, and still some memory overhead in each object.
4. Implement readFromFile outside obj's scope, so in vec's class or in the calling class. This, in my opinion, breaks data encapsulation.

I realize for large amounts of data one explicit object for each triangle is not the best approach. This is only an example.

In response to Aaronaught's response to the question at:

Can't I just use all static methods?

Isn't less memory used for a static method? I am under the impression that each object instance carries around its own executable version of a non-static member function.

Regardless of how much overhead is involved in calling a static method, regardless of poor OO design, and possible headaches down the road, doesn't it use less memory at runtime?

Here is an example:

I make a vector of zero-initialized objects. Each object contains one piece of data (a triangle consisting of nine double's). Each object is populated in sequence from data read from a .stl file. Only one static method is needed. Proper OO design dictates that a method dealing with the the data directly should be distributed to each object. Here is the standard OO solution:

foreach(obj in vec) { obj.readFromFile(fileName); } 

Each obj carries readFromFile's compiled code alongside the data!

Memory is more of a concern than performance in this case, and there is a LOT of data on a constrained system.

Solutions:

1. Namespace method (great for C++ but not possible in Java)
2. One static method in obj's class. Executable code is kept in one place at runtime. There is a small overhead to call the method.
3. A parent class from which obj is derived, which contains the private method readFromFile. Call with super.callPrivateMethod() which calls readFromFile. Messy, and still some memory overhead in each object.
4. Implement readFromFile outside obj's scope, so in vec's class or in the calling class. This, in my opinion, breaks data encapsulation.

I realize for large amounts of data one explicit object for each triangle is not the best approach. This is only an example.