Re: C++ vs C compiler on size

Joseph Donahue <jwdonah@ibm.net>
14 Jan 1997 20:11:24 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
C++ vs C compiler on size yeh@netcom.com (1997-01-07)
Re: C++ vs C compiler on size robison@kai.com (Arch Robison) (1997-01-09)
Re: C++ vs C compiler on size fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (1997-01-12)
Re: C++ vs C compiler on size bill@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com (1997-01-12)
Re: C++ vs C compiler on size jlilley@empathy.com (1997-01-12)
Re: C++ vs C compiler on size schow@nortel.ca (Stanley Chow) (1997-01-14)
Re: C++ vs C compiler on size jwdonah@ibm.net (Joseph Donahue) (1997-01-14)
Re: C++ vs C compiler on size aeb@saltfarm.bt.co.uk (1997-01-16)
Re: C++ vs C compiler on size edi-c@algonet.se (Kurt Svensson) (1997-01-16)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Joseph Donahue <jwdonah@ibm.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 14 Jan 1997 20:11:24 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 97-01-048 97-01-086
Keywords: C, C++, performance

Bill Leonard wrote:


> If you are comparing C++ to C, then you should compare two equivalent
> things. For instance, compare a virtual function call to the
> *equivalent* C code that would implement the same functionality.


I have not performed such a comparison, but I have seen the C coding
architecture to which you refer and it is very ugly. I think that
size and execution speed would probably be very similar, but the C++
version will take half the time for someone to code, or read, or
understand... :).
--

Post a followup to this message

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