CompuServe Messages

>Hi :-). Your late response to my message took my response completley out >of context. In my message, I was describing 'politely' how C++ is NOT >BASIC and performance degradation is not even an issue in my case. So >when I said "I can see how C++ in general will result in larger and slower >code", I was just being polite when responding to a message describing C++ >as a language only for super computers. I think I took your message less out of context than you think. I think the difference in my style of posting might be at issue. When I post, I must unfortunately wear a number of hats and am often provocative. >The following is a list of my messages OUT OF context with the real >context in capital letters: > >-1- I can see how C++ in general will result in larger and slower code. >I WAS BEING POLITE, NOTICE THE WORD 'GENERAL'. My disagreeing by saying it might be larger, and won't be slower, in general, is neither polite or impolite, it is the technical issue at hand. Nothing is out of context here. >-2-(and C++ is becoming equivalent to BASIC) I'll put in my 2 cents. >HERE I WAS REALLY SURPRISED WHEN I READ THE MESSAGE, SO I WROTE THE ABOVE >SENTENCE. I didn't even have a statement on this, it was a question with _no_ indication of a statement from me whatsoever. So nothing was out of context here either. >-3- Even though my code is bigger and generally slower, the benefits of >using C++ (or Object Oriented Languages) outway the performance >degradation. >THE BENEFITS OUTWAY THE PERFORMANCE DEGRADATION (WHICH ARE MINISCULE)!. They — in general — are not miniscule, they are statistically non-existance, hence, again, there is nothing happening out of context here. >Ok now that I am little bit in context, I'll respond to some of your >points, followed by a question: Just saying you're in context does not make you so. I am not trying to be a wise guy here, I just see you trying to defend your point of view on some technical issues with non-technical arguments. I am glad we are now going into those issues below. >>I cannot. This is not to imply that certain features in C++ do not have >>performance or size tradeoffs: some unequivocally do. >>However, the issue on the table is not to compare features > >The issue was that C++ will result in super slow code and the language is >bad and decreasing in popularity which resulted in my message. C++ is NOT >a language for super computers only and its NOT decreasing in popularity. >As a matter of fact, one of the main reasons its increasing in popularity >at a much higher rate than SmallTalk for example, is because of the >speed. So if I gather right, you are agreeing with me? Great then. >>C++ code is just as fast, but larger. > >I agree, but I guess 'just as fast' will depend on your compiler. Yes, so this is a non-issue per se. I often say that it is "just as fast, or slow, as C" as well, which of course means the same thing from another facet. >Sometimes 'larger' implies 'slower'. Sometimes. Two common issues involving this include: (1) "process" load time under some OS's/environments (2) things like virtual memory They can indeed be real issues, but as well, in general, there is an aspect to it that transcends the language so it does tend to become more an OS et al specific issue. This of course does not imply throwing it out the window though. >>>(and C++ is becoming equivalent to BASIC) I'll put in my 2 cents: >>Eh? Or do you popularity-wise? > >Yes popularity wise. I get very discouraged when I see messages from >leading Amiga developers discrediting an entire language. I would like to >have RogueWave's libraries ported to the Amiga. I would like ZINC, ZAPP >and XVT crossplatform development tools include the Amiga as one of the >platforms. I would like an Amiga that I buy in the store that has >networking and mail built in. How about OpenDoc on the Amiga. But when >your leading Amiga developers campain for assembly as the only true >langage, then the only way is popularity-wise. (and in this case its not >C= who is hurting the Amiga). Again, I only asked a question and I had no indication as to what you meant. I totally agree with some of this things you've just said. In fact, I very strongly agree. >>>- Even though my code is bigger and generally slower, I think the >>>benefits of using C++ (or Object Oriented Languages) outway the >>>performance degradation. > >>That might be a valid compromise for some other language since it is not >>slower, this conclusion is not valid. > >THERE IS a performance degradation. Pick a program or several programs >that we will both code to the best of our abilities in C and C++ then >compile using SAS (cfront 2.1 :-)) and we'll see the difference. THERE ISN'T. And one program isn't going to show this. Nonetheless, you pick the program, code it for us in both languages, and report the results. And please do keep the programs in context. That is, definitely discard that C is part of C++, that C or C++ can be shown to be faster/slower than itself, etc. Anyway, I'm confused: you agree above that it is just as fast, albeit somewhat larger. Instead of getting into details on saying I'm taking you out of context again instead of simply considering that I don't understand what you mean yet then, let's just do the _information exchange_ on it (that's what I'm here for) to get at the roots of the issue. >>>- After writting your code, you can always find the areas that are >>>performance sensitive and write pieces of that code in assembly. If you >>>find yourself rewritting everything, then I think there is a problem in >>>the design. > >>Both of these points have _always_ been true no matter what the language, >>so singling out C++ here is bogus. (And a nit: going to assembly is not >>the only course of action, but certain one that many should consider). > >If the points are true for all laguages that means its true for C++. Correct. >Since we were talking about C++, singling out C++ is NOT bogus. That's not the way I interpreted the original statement, and still don't, so I have to continue to say it is bogus. Even if I have misinterpreted, my statement remains valid as you've just said in the above paragraph ("…true for all langs…"). >And finally the question: > >The thread started with SAS dumping the Amiga and someone saying that >SAS's work is anyway complete. Then I responded that as far as C++, its >not really complete since I miss templates and expection handling and a >few other things. Then a bunch of messages were added about how bad C++ >for the Amiga is. Are you against or with C++ development on the Amiga >platform? or are you just discussing langages in general? Both. I am always for discussing language in general. Furthermore, I am responsible for the most widely availabe commercial C++ anywhere: Comeau C++ 3.0 With Templates. As we have an Amiga port, and we are not withdrawning it, I'm very much for C++ development on the Amiga.