Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/06/02/17:29:54
>> Of course, C++, IMHO, is not for games, or anything that has to run
>C++ is as low level and fast exactly as C.
OK, I know I said I'd quit responding to this thread, but I can't help
myself... I just have to say, oh please, that's the dumbest thing I've
heard in a while. HOW COULD C++ be as low level as C when it's C + OTHER
STUFF... I don't see how you can possibly think that OOP and templates
don't provide overhead.
>The poster probably meant that the object oriented paradigm is not suitable
>I disagree on that also. Sometimes good OO design results in an even faster
>Think about virtual function calls vs chains of "if-else" or "switch"
>C++ is a multi-paradigm language:
> You want to write code in a C-like procedural manner ? you can.
> You want Object Oriented programming ? you got it.
> You want Generic Programming <templates , STL> ? you got it.
>plus, the compiler is always watching you. it won't let you do things that
>allows. Therefore , a C++ compiler is an even better way to learn C !.
>... and many more benefits.
OK, I don't see why virtual functions would be any faster than a switch(),
a switch() statement is pretty damned fast if you ask me.
Secondly, why the hell would I code C in a C++ environment... That's like
writing a Pascal interpreter for DJGPP just so that I get the privilege of
typing something like gcc -o pascal.exe pascal.pas -lpascal or something
lame like that... If you wanna right C, using a C++ pointer is dumb.
Third, I personally, and this obviously isn't everybody's opinion so
please don't even bother replying to it, I just want to say it, hate
generic programming and compilers that hold my hand... If I wanted a
compiler that would hold it for me while I pee I'd still be using
QuickBASIC, because it even capitalized things for me.
- Raw text -