SAS dumps Amiga
>Try as I might, I'm still no fan of C++, either. And I recently saw a
>news item that computer guru Ed Yourdon has been more vocal against it,
>too. Demand for it has leveled off.
>
>I think one big drain in C++ is the malloc/free library in most
>compilers. They're so darn slow and degrade in performance over time (the
>first call to malloc() takes N time, the 10,000 call takes 100xN time or
>worse). With all those automatic "new" operators in C++ code, programmer
>forget that there's a malloc() in there someplace.
I can see how C++ in general will result in larger and slower code, but I
don't see the need to write all my code in assembly (at least in my shop)
to gain performance improvement. I did not respond to Ben's earlier
message since he seemed to describe his needs, and was not really stating
that assembly or C is better than C++. But since this thread is still on
(and C++ is becoming equivalent to BASIC) I'll put in my 2 cents:
– Even though my code is bigger and generally slower, I think the benefits
of using C++ (or Object Oriented Languages) outway the performance
degradation.
– 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.
– You can right class specific 'new' and 'delete' operators to increase
performance in the creation and destruction of classes that do not need
the extras that come with 'new' and 'delete'.
🙂 Hani