Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 13:11:04 08/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2004 at 13:53:41, Bo Persson wrote: >On August 11, 2004 at 18:38:38, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >> >>Then, we have C++, which tries to make a high level language out of a low level >>language. Guess what? it _doesn't work_. It is an exercise in stupidity. > >Would you care to expand on this? Exactly *why* doesn't it work? > >>There are two ways to write C++: you can write it as C with a few nice syntax >>features to clean up your code, or you can (as you are evidently advocating) >>write it as an attempted high level language. The only problem with this is that >>you will fail miserably, because you still have to do your own memory >>management, etc. > >What memory management? > >What "etc." ? > > >> So you end up with the same development time as C and the same >>speed as a high level language. >> >>This is why languages like C++ and Java are the anus of the body of programming >>languages. If you want to sacrifice speed and write in Lisp, I may not agree >>with you, but I can at least see where you are coming from. If you want to >>write in HLA-attempt-C++, I can only consider you a moron. > >I'm the kind of moron that writes in C++ because the resulting code looks better >and runs faster. A good C++ program cannot run faster than a good C program doing same thing. Just like a good C program cannot run faster than a good Assembly program doing same thing. Although it is possible to write C++ code that is just as fast as C, there are more pitfalls. Quoting Peter van der Linden (author of the famous "Expert C Programming" book): "[In C++] the original C philosophy of 'no features that need invisible runtime support' has been compromised." >What do I do wrong? :-) > > >Bo Persson
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.