Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 23:10:45 01/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2003 at 21:34:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>Then you sacrifice performance. Particularly for machines that do not have >>8 bit chars and weird configurations! The performance hit in those cases is must >>be huge. You cannot have 100% portability and best performance at the same time. >>C gives, IMHO, the best compromise. History showed that. > >Actually it doesn't show that. C was developed 30+ years ago on a very simple >architecture. The basic language structure has survived for a long time, but >the data types (particularly integer) have really lagged behind, and kludges >like "long long" are the result of short-sightedness... Well, it survived 30+ years, so history is saying something. IMHO, the data types had a lot to do with the success of the language. It allowed to write portable and efficient code for diversed machines with completely different word sizes, and I did not make that up, it really happened. The bottom line is that you do not like the data type structures but I do. It is a matter of taste. Miguel
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.