This is an argument that is utterly ridiculous in this day and age.
I used to have it with the box coders (the guys that wrote emebeded and onboard code) when I worked for a racing car firm many years ago. Then, they had a point. On a modern PC loaded with a busy operating system (linux suffers less here perhaps than windows but there is still a lot going on) I defy ANYONE to detect a difference between what is essentially a few extra pointer de-references.
There is still a noticable difference between GUI's written in cross platform languaues - replete with garbage collection etc. and native applications accessing the graphical API directly but that is because there is a huge amount of translation going on.
yes - C++ is marginally slower than C but unless you are working in a tiny amount of memory on low power processor I doubt it will effect you at all. Even the box coders would win their arguments based on memory usage against speed more often than not
cheers
mark
-----Original Message----- From: pd-list-admin@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-admin@iem.at] On Behalf Of Thomas Grill Sent: 23 November 2003 20:03 To: Jerome Etienne; guenter geiger Cc: pd-list@iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] [offtopic] Re: That C++ is slower thing again
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.
I would be very interested in an example depicting what you mean (e.g. what kind of overhead etc.). It seems i can't follow your argumentation.
greetings, Thomas
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list