Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: C and C++ --- NPS

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 07:33:19 12/25/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 25, 2002 at 06:32:57, David Rasmussen wrote:

>On December 24, 2002 at 11:11:38, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On December 24, 2002 at 05:29:47, David Rasmussen wrote:
>>
>>It's very trivial that when you use high level language
>>constructions in c++ that it is way slower than C.
>>
>
>No...
>
>>on the other hand it is possible to write a kind of C a look
>>like c++ which is trivially having the same speed like C.
>>
>>I do not understand why people argue about that.
>>
>
>Argue about what?

>>No C++ isn't faster. No C++ doesn't need to be slower. It's
>>basically the same language with c++ having a few constructions
>>that enable OO programming which are high level and very dead
>>slow to use.
>>
>
>Now you're showing your enourmous ignorance again. Don't embarrass yourself
>again.

Show code. then i'll show you the C code of it (if it ain't too much c++).

>>The average student for example doesn't realize that object
>>allocation is very expensive and that things like overloading
>>inheritance and all kind of cool c++ constructions are dead slow.
>>
>
>Mmm. Too late to stop the embarrassment I guess...
>Object allocation on the heap doesn't cost more than malloc in C. If you have a
>constructor doing things you would do anyway after mallocing, they will of
>course cost the same. Object "allocation" on the stack (local variables) costs
>nothing more than local variables in C. It is done the same way. Stack frames
>etc. Again if you have a constructor doing things you would do anyway, it costs
>the same.
>Overloading costs nothing, it's a compile time construct and is resolved at
>compile/link time.
>Inheritance costs nothing, it too is a compile/link time issue.
>You know nothing about C++, do you? I didn't think so.
>
>>The more you use of them the slower it gets. A factor 3 will be
>>not exceptional.
>>
>
>LOL!!
>
>>But the average neat written code is by definition a lot slower
>>than code written for speed.
>>
>
>By definition?! LOL!!
>Your ignorance isn't embarrasing anymore, now it's just funny.
>
>>I was now looking to some other products, nothing to do with chess
>>at the source code of some code which, written in C, and in total
>>around 2.5MB of source code for that part of the functionality.
>>
>>Very neatly written C code. Very good readable.
>>
>>Written for speed. Indeed it is using a lot of clever tables.
>>
>>But a good C hacker will replace so many stuff with pointers
>>and it'll get at least 50% faster.
>>
>>Same is true for C++. An excellent C program written for speed
>>is of course times faster than C++ code that uses typical C++
>>constructions and is not written for speed.
>>
>>I do not see the problem here. This is a logical thing.
>>
>
>OK, now it's not funny anymore. Now it's tragic.
>
>>I had to chose between writing my GUI functionality (database and such)
>>in C or C++ before i started. Initially i wanted to start it in C++
>>but in the end i figured out that speed for a chess database is not
>>unimportant so i wrote it in C.
>>
>
>If there was a speed difference for that kind of application, it just goes to
>show how bad you are at C++ programming, or at programming in general.
>
>>But i could of course have done it in C++ as well. In fact if i change
>>the extension of the code from *.c to *.cpp then it pretty quickly
>>is c++ code already, the nearly same code being both C and C++. Says
>>enough to me about speed differences.
>>
>
>C++ has nothing to do with extensions, Vincent...
>
>Please don't post more of this nonsense, Vincent.
>
>/David



This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.