In article <················@ursa.sis.yorku.ca> ··@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (ozan s. yigit) writes:
>surely we have something better to talk about?
>
I think the subject is quite appropriate and interesting.
May I suggest you consider doing like I do to subjects in which
I'm not interested in... I don't read them.
--
-- Pete Grant | Andrulis Research Corp is
Andrulis Research Corporation | on a contract with the US
·····@pentagon-gw.army.mil | Army AI Center, The Pentagon
(703) 271-7980 |
Pete Grant:
>surely we have something better to talk about?
I think the subject is quite appropriate and interesting.
here is a type of posting that you no doubt find "quite appropriate and
interesting" to scheme and lisp newsgroups. let me know when you are
ready to post your raisin-cookie recipes or your comix reading
list.
| >And, you must not neglect the runtime hit imposed by using C++.
| >People tend to argue that C++ can be as fast as C, because it is
| > a superset of C.
|
| C++ *can* be as fast as C, but not because it's a superset of C
| (which a lot of C programmers have argued against).
|
| >Of course it is as fast as C as long as you don't use any C++ features apart
| >from "sugar" like //-comments and inlined functions etc. But then
| >you can stick with C in the first place.
| D
| It's obvious comp.lang.c++ isn't one of your regular newsgroups.
| The *ONLY* feature of C++ that MIGHT cause C++ code to run slower than
| equivalent C code is the virtual dispatch (late binding) mechanism.
| Standard (nonvirtual) member functions in C++ execute just as fast as
| a C function to which a pointer to a structure is passed. There is
| absolutely no performance hit. A virtual function must be explicitly
| declared as such -- nonvirtual is the default -- which makes it likely
| that most functions are "straight" with no performance loss.
|
| It has been often argued in comp.lang.c++ that the virtual function
| dispatch mechanism is more efficient in terms of execution time than
| what the typical programmer is likely to implement to get similar
| functinality in C. I don't know personally, but the 'gurus' of that
| newsgroup vehemently claim that, with most compilers, a switch
| statement to determine the type of object, then branching to call the
| appropriate function, is considerably slower than the built-in
| virtual function dispatch provided by those compilers. The bottom
| line, then, is that properly programmed C++ module can be faster
| than equivalently implemented C module. (Flame bait??)
| >
| Incidentally, in CLOS we don't have that choice; i.e., early vs
| late binding. That makes C++'s class system 'better' in that
| respect. :-)
|
May I suggest you consider doing like I do to subjects in which
I'm not interested in... I don't read them.
not all subject belong in all newsgroups. kindly go to your nearest
clue, and take the regular dose.
oz