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 0.03 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.