Author: Tom Likens
Date: 17:50:49 07/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2003 at 19:00:41, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On July 28, 2003 at 18:26:29, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>References, function inlining and namespaces are enaugh to use C++. > >Gerd, references is enough for me, to avoid C++. In the "old days", when I read >code with a function call, like foo(a), I was sure, that a will be the same >after the function call, than before. With C++, I cannot be sure anymore. If I >want to make a changable by a function call, I use &a in C. All pretty much self >documenting. Not anymore in C++. > >It may even be a performance issue. I read your suggestion about the small >inline functions vs. macros. I basically agree. But when using reference >paramaters (your example did), things might be very different. This might make >it very difficult or even impossible to make a good optimization for the >compiler. > >Function inlining is part of the ISO C Standard of 1999. Not all compilers >support it. > >Regards, >Dieter I'm a fan of C++ but I agree with this completely. I made it a practice long ago, that if the any routine changes the parameters passed to it then the parameters need to be passed via a pointer. Otherwise, there is no visual indication that they are being altered, which is a no-no. Any other policy, seems to invite subtle bugs. That being said, I still believe the benefits of C++ outweigh the negatives. I love the STL and the entire concept of generic programming provides tremendous power. The real problem (IMHO) with C++ is that there are large number of ways to blow your feet off with it. It *is* a complicated language and getting proficient requires a __serious__ investment of time. regards, --tom
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.