[OT] Re: (That C++ is slower thing again) Re: the damned GUI - was:[PD] Pd in white on black and OSC
Marc Lavallée
odradek at videotron.ca
Mon Nov 24 04:02:24 CET 2003
On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 07:44:55PM -0500, Larry Troxler wrote:
> Argg, lost the url already - sorry.
http://www.eventhelix.com/RealtimeMantra/basics/ComparingCPPAndCPerformance.htm
> if you don't define a destructor, then surely one won't be called.
But if there is one, it will be called whenever an object is deleted.
> Either a destructor is needed, or it is not.
Sometimes it is not necessary to call a destructor each time an object is
deleted; this is where an inline destructor can supposedly help (I'm not a
C++ programmer, and never read a C++ book). I found this paper on C++
performance issues: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/PDF/perf4.pdf
Inlining destructors seems tricky and dangerous.
> But if you're using this class polymorphically, I don't really see how
> you could get better perforrmance overall by doing the equivalent thing
> in C (probably using function pointers).
Me neither. But again, I'm not a C++ programmer. I only hack simple C
programs from time to time. I use C++ only with flext.
> What am I missing here?
Nothing. I now have the impression that well written and optimised C++
code can be as fast as C, although there must a lot of poorly written C++
code used to produce bloated softwares, because object oriented
programming is popular for big projects.
--
Marc
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list