Comments on: Torn over the C++ question http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/ parsing, performance, minimalism with C99 Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:44:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rodrigo Moraes http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1719 Rodrigo Moraes Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:44:53 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1719 If you'd be starting today, do you think it could benefit from using go? Also, could you please drop some general considerations about golang? :) If you’d be starting today, do you think it could benefit from using go? Also, could you please drop some general considerations about golang? :)

]]> By: Rob http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1533 Rob Sat, 03 Apr 2010 14:27:51 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1533 Sounds as though the C++ compiler is doing it's job. It is duplicating code under the same function name (to you it seems like it is storing the same function multiple times). What its doing is inlining some of your function for speed. You can change that, and it will be as tight as the C code. Sounds as though the C++ compiler is doing it’s job. It is duplicating code under the same function name (to you it seems like it is storing the same function multiple times).

What its doing is inlining some of your function for speed. You can change that, and it will be as tight as the C code.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1529 Anonymous Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:33:30 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1529 It's trivial to wrap your C implementation so that it can be called directly from C++. So translating your implementation from C to C++ provides no real benefit, it's more like busy work. Plus C++ is such an ugly language that its hard to imagine that it won't die out over the next decade, replaced by C#/Objective C/Java etc. C, on the other hand, has virtues of simplicity, clarity, portability, and performance that other programming languages have yet to supplant. It’s trivial to wrap your C implementation so that it can be called directly from C++. So translating your implementation from C to C++ provides no real benefit, it’s more like busy work. Plus C++ is such an ugly language that its hard to imagine that it won’t die out over the next decade, replaced by C#/Objective C/Java etc. C, on the other hand, has virtues of simplicity, clarity, portability, and performance that other programming languages have yet to supplant.

]]> By: Kate http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1525 Kate Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:01:33 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1525 Hi. Don't forget to check the return value of malloc(). You might also enjoy this: http://iq0.com/notes/deep.nesting.html Hi. Don’t forget to check the return value of malloc(). You might also enjoy this:
http://iq0.com/notes/deep.nesting.html

]]> By: blankthemuffin http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1518 blankthemuffin Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:04:36 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1518 I vote to stick with C for another reason, integration with other languages. If your project is a nice C library, it's vastly easier for people using other languages, C, Python, whatever, to interface with your library rather than having to re-implement it. C++ is imo an awful choice for a library because it ends up restricting this to other things written in C++ (unless of course you wrap it up in a C abi but that is messy). I'd prefer a base in C with a C++ wrapper as required. I vote to stick with C for another reason, integration with other languages. If your project is a nice C library, it’s vastly easier for people using other languages, C, Python, whatever, to interface with your library rather than having to re-implement it.

C++ is imo an awful choice for a library because it ends up restricting this to other things written in C++ (unless of course you wrap it up in a C abi but that is messy).

I’d prefer a base in C with a C++ wrapper as required.

]]> By: nobody http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1500 nobody Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:09:38 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1500 GCC 4.5 should get link-time optimization which will hopefully help binary size a lot. ultimately though, i still find myself reaching for C, for the ease of binding to other languages and the smaller size. i still like to keep my code C++ compatible and run it through the C++ compiler occasionally though, just because it's much stricter on typing. GCC 4.5 should get link-time optimization which will hopefully help binary size a lot. ultimately though, i still find myself reaching for C, for the ease of binding to other languages and the smaller size. i still like to keep my code C++ compatible and run it through the C++ compiler occasionally though, just because it’s much stricter on typing.

]]> By: George P. http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1496 George P. Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:59:35 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1496 I have a hard time accepting the comment that C++ compilers aren't very good at keeping things small. Which compiler have you used? I would agree that C++ nuances are complicated and that you need to read volumes of books to better grasp the details of optimization. I have a hard time accepting the comment that C++ compilers aren’t very good at keeping things small. Which compiler have you used? I would agree that C++ nuances are complicated and that you need to read volumes of books to better grasp the details of optimization.

]]> By: Alejandro M. http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/12/02/torn-over-the-c-question/comment-page-1/#comment-1490 Alejandro M. Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:47:30 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=301#comment-1490 great choice! :-) great choice! :-)

]]>