On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Jerome Etienne wrote:
nevertheless your argument doesnt hold in its formulation, c++ has more overhead at running time that C, an overhead which reduce its speed. if you write the 20% of code which use 80% of the time in C, and the 80% of your code which use 20% of the time in c++, your code *IS* slower, simply in a negigeable way. if you write all your code in C, your c++ code is as fast as C code, it is pure c, no more c++ even if it is embedded in a .cpp file.
Dude, almost all C++-specific features have been designed with no overhead in mind, beyond the one at compile time.
The most common "runtime overhead" there is is method-lookup, when you use the "virtual" keyword. But still, reproducing the concept of virtual methods in C using function pointers is unlikely to be faster than C++'s built-in support for them.
I'd be extremely curious to know what are those slower parts of C++ that you are talking about. I mean, identify specific features that are slow...
it is a rather pedantic arguement which doesnt intend to start any flame war,
If it really were "pedantic" it would come with more details and more research.
And even though you say you don't want to start any disputes, if your claims are considered very disputable (or even plain wrong) then they are likely to attract rebuttals anyway.
Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju