Performance of using static methods vs instantiating the class containing the methods

Question

I'm working on a project in C#. The previous programmer didn't know object oriented programming, so most of the code is in huge files (we're talking around 4-5000 lines) spread over tens and sometimes hundreds of methods, but only one class. Refactoring such a project is a huge undertaking, and so I've semi-learned to live with it for now.

Whenever a method is used in one of the code files, the class is instantiated and then the method is called on the object instance.

I'm wondering whether there are any noticeable performance penalties in doing it this way? Should I make all the methods static "for now" and, most importantly, will the application benefit from it in any way?

Answer 1

From here, a static call is 4 to 5 times faster than constructing an instance every time you call an instance method. However, we're still only talking about tens of nanoseconds per call, so you're unlikely to notice any benefit unless you have really tight loops calling a method millions of times, and you could get the same benefit by constructing a single instance outside that loop and reusing it.

Since you'd have to change every call site to use the newly static method, you're probably better spending your time on gradually refactoring.

Answer 2

I have dealt with a similar problem where i work. The programmer before me created 1 controller class where all the BLL functions were dumped.

We are redesigning the system now and have created many Controller classes depending on what they are supposed to control e.g.

UserController, GeographyController, ShoppingController...

Inside each controller class they have static methods which make calls to cache or the DAL using the singleton pattern.

This has given us 2 main advantages. It is slightly faster(around 2-3 times faster but were talking nanoseconds here ;P). The other is that the code is much cleaner

i.e

ShoppingController.ListPaymentMethods()

instead of

new ShoppingController().ListPaymentMethods()

I think it makes sense to use static methods or classes if the class doesn't maintain any state.

Answer 3

It depends on what else that object contains -- if the "object" is just a bunch of functions then it's probably not the end of the world. But if the object contains a bunch of other objects, then instantiating it is gonna call all their constructors (and destructors, when it's deleted) and you may get memory fragmentation and so on.

That said, it doesn't sound like performance is your biggest problem right now.

Answer 4

You have to determine the goals of the rewrite. If you want to have nice testable, extendable & maintainable OO code then you could try to use objects and their instance methods. After all this is Object Oriented programing we're talking about here, not Class Oriented programming.

It is very straightforward to fake and/or mock objects when you define classes that implement interfaces and you execute instance methods. This makes thorough unit testing quick and effective.

Also, if you are to follow good OO principles (see SOLID at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_%28object-oriented_design%29 ) and/or use design patterns you will certainly be doing a lot of instance based, interface based development, and not using many static methods.

As for this suggestion:

It seems silly to me to create an object JUST so you can call a method which seemingly has no side effects on the object (from your description i assume this).

I see this a lot in dot net shops and to me this violates encapsulation, a key OO concept. I should not be able to tell whether a method has side effects by whether or not the method is static. As well as breaking encapsulation this means that you will need to be changing methods from static to instance if/when you modify them to have side effects. I suggest you read up on the Open/Closed principle for this one and see how the suggested approach, quoted above, works with that in mind.

Remember that old chestnut, 'premature optimization is the root of all evil'. I think in this case this means don't jump through hoops using inappropriate techniques (i.e. Class Oriented programming) until you know you have a performance issue. Even then debug the issue and look for the most appropriate.

Answer 5

Static methods are a lot faster and uses a lot less memory. There is this misconception that it's just a little faster. It's a little faster as long as you don't put it on loops. BTW, some loops look small but really aren't because the method call containing the loop is also another loop. You can tell the difference in code that performs rendering functions. A lot less memory is unfortunately true in many cases. An instance allows easy sharing of information with sister methods. A static method will ask for the information when he needs it.

But like in driving cars, speed brings responsibility. Static methods usually have more parameters than their instance counterpart. Because an instance would take care of caching shared variables, your instance methods will look prettier.

ShapeUtils.DrawCircle(stroke, pen, origin, radius);

ShapeUtils.DrawSquare(stroke, pen, x, y, width, length);

VS

ShapeUtils utils = new ShapeUtils(stroke,pen);

util.DrawCircle(origin,radius);

util.DrawSquare(x,y,width,length);

In this case, whenever the instance variables are used by all methods most of the time, instance methods are pretty worth it. Instances are NOT ABOUT STATE, it's about SHARING although COMMON STATE is a natural form of SHARING, they are NOT THE SAME. General rule of thumb is this: if the method is tightly coupled with other methods --- they love each other so much that they when one is called, the other needs to be called too and they probably share the same cup of water---, it should be made instance. To translate static methods into instance methods is not that hard. You only need to take the shared parameters and put them as instance variables. The other way around is harder.

Or you can make a proxy class that will bridge the static methods. While it may seem to be more inefficient in theory, practice tells a different story. This is because whenever you need to call a DrawSquare once (or in a loop), you go straight to the static method. But whenever you are gonna use it over and over along with DrawCircle, you are gonna use the instance proxy. An example is the System.IO classes FileInfo (instance) vs File (static).

Static Methods are testable. In fact, even more testable than instance once. Method GetSum(x,y) would be very testable to not just unit test but load test, integrated test and usage test. Instance methods are good for units tests but horrible for every other tests (which matters more than units tests BTW) that is why we get so many bugs these days. The thing that makes ALL Methods untestable are parameters that don't make sense like (Sender s, EventArgs e) or global state like DateTime.Now. In fact, static methods are so good at testability that you see less bugs in C code of a new Linux distro than your average OO programmer (he's full of s*** I know).

Answer 6

I think you've partially answered this question in the way you asked it: are there any noticeable performance penalties in the code that you have?

If the penalties aren't noticeable, you needn't necessarily do anything at all. (Though it goes without saying the codebase would benefit dramtically from a gradual refactor into a respectable OO model).

I guess what I'm saying is, a performance problem is only a problem when you notice that it's a problem.

Answer 7

It seems silly to me to create an object JUST so you can call a method which seemingly has no side effects on the object (from your description i assume this). It seems to me that a better compromise would be to have several global objects and just use those. That way you can put the variables that normally would be global into the appropriate classes so that they have slightly smaller scope.

From there you can slowly move the scope of these objects to be smaller and smaller until you have a decent OOP design.

Then again, the approach that I would probably use is different ;).

Personally, I would likely focus on structures and the functions which operate on them and try to convert these into classes with members little by little.

As for the performance aspect of the question, static methods should be slightly faster (but not much) since they don't involve constructing, passing and deconstructing an object.

Answer 8

It's not valid in PHP,
Object Method is faster :
http://www.vanylla.it/tests/static-method-vs-object.php