[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. 

> 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.


More information about the Pd-list mailing list