Re: is C necessarily faster than C++

I just found it interesting that these two articles were responding to
the same question.


In article 95-04-121, Thomas Breuel <tmb@netcom.com> wrote:
>If you know exactly what you are doing, C++ needs to be no slower than
>C. However, it is very easy in C++ to write programs that have hidden
>overhead (redundant copies of larger arrays, unexpected use of virtual
>functions rather than direct calls, unexpected inhibition of inlining
>and other optimizations, etc.). Identifying that you are wasting
>time on something like that and tracking the source can be a bit of
>effort, and less experienced programmers in your group may not even
>know what's happening.


In article 95-04-102, Randy Oxentenko <rdo@elt.com> wrote:
>It's not exactly an empirical study, but the book recently published by
>Stroustrup, _The Design and Evolution of C++_, makes this comment many
>times throughout the book: One of the fundamental design concepts for
>C++ was this: You don't pay for what you don't use. [...]
>The C++ specific features
>were also done in the light of efficiency. Nothing that could not be
>implemented efficiently from a run-time point of view was seriously
>considered for the language. [...]
>Anyway, this book sheds good light on the topic of efficiency.


Hmm, perhaps "good light" is in reference to the goals rather than the
actual language.
--

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.