Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 12:25:28 12/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2002 at 10:33:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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++). No, do it the other way. You show the C code first. That way we can rename .c to .cpp, Q.E.D. :-) Dave
This page took 0 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.