Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 05:50:27 12/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2002 at 15:38:19, Matt Taylor wrote: >>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. > >Overloading costs an indirect function call. What? No it doesn't. Overloading is resolved at compile time by a well defined set of rules. See The C++ Programming Language 3rd ed. p. 149. I recommend both of you to read that book and also The Design And Evolution of C++, to get an understanding of how much care has been taken to not impose runtime overhead on features that doesn't need it. > I'm not sure if you can apply const >to a class like you can apply final to one in Java, but unless the compiler >knows the class can't be inherited from, it has to make the operator an indirect >function call. > What has this to do with overloading? Overloading means using the same name for different things. Overriding and virtual functions are something different. I am responding to "overloading" because that was the word Vincent used. >>>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. > >C code in C++ is the same speed, but using C++ constructs can be slower. Or faster. There will not be a speed difference for this kind of application if done right, even if you have a nice design with abstraction benefits etc. >Multiple inheritance, polymorphism, etc. > You don't have to use those features. And when you do, you would have to do something similar to obtain the same effect. It's the programmers choice. >>>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... > >Most compilers I have worked with (Borland, Symantec, Microsoft) decide whether >to compile C++ or C based on file extension, though you can always pass a flag >and force C++ rules. I believe GNU C also does this, but I have ignored the >commandline options except for optimization flags. > And this is relevant in what way? /David
This page took 0.04 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.