From: tomw AT tsys DOT demon DOT co DOT uk (Tom Wheeley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Allegro future
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 00:56:05 GMT
Organization: Adventures and Diving
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <850870565snz@tsys.demon.co.uk>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 961216174328 DOT 18715L-100000 AT is>
Reply-To: tw104 AT york DOT ac DOT uk
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

On Monday, in article
     <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 961216174328 DOT 18715L-100000 AT is>
     eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il "Eli Zaretskii" wrote:

> I'm NOT in holy war mode here, mind you.  IMHO, the real problem with C++
> is not the code *we* write (upon which we have *some* control), but the
> code that is inside C++ class libraries which most people will use without
> looking up the sources.  Now, while in C you will usually have an
> intuitive notion of how expensive a given operation should be, in C++ this
> is generally concealed in the inheritance hierarchy, and is beyond your

That is very true.  Every language I learned before C (ie Basic + Pascal)
effectively overloaded the + operator to work with strings.  This meant that
until I learnt C, where you have to do a lot of work to deal with strings,
I never really realised how expensive string routines were.  Then comes
along C++ (looks just like Basic, IMVHO) letting people ignore again how
much work the computer has to do...

:sb)   please send mail to <tw104 AT york DOT ac DOT uk>   http://www.york.ac.uk/~tw104/
--
#include <stdio.h>                  /* The .splitbung super .sig system! */
#include <string.h>
main(){FILE*f;int c[1];char s[99];puts("sig:");fgets(s,99,stdin);if(!*c=strchr(s
,'\n'))s[c=0;f=fopen(s,"r");while((c=getc(f))!=EOF)putchar(c);f&&fclose(f)