[PD] [offtopic] Re: That C++ is slower thing again

[mark]

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 at iem.at [mailto:pd-list-admin at iem.at] On 
> Behalf Of Thomas Grill
> Sent: 23 November 2003 20:03
> To: Jerome Etienne; guenter geiger
> Cc: pd-list at 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 at iem.at
> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
>