Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C

From	jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C
Date	2011-05-25 13:07 +0200
Organization	lccwin
Message-ID	<irintf$lnc$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <4dd8a5e4$0$2871$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> <code-size-20110522170846@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <4ddbdfe2$0$24147$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> <c8fd8d16-ee79-4006-99a3-fcacfb0f4679@g28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <4ddcd6aa$0$24142$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>

Show all headers | View raw

Le 25/05/11 12:15, Rui Maciel a écrit :
> hanukas wrote:
>
>> That's not very relevant as I don't think a FIFO is very popular
>> replacement strategy for cache.
>
> I believe you didn't quite understood it.  The main point, which Belady's
> anomaly demonstrates, is that there isn't necessarily a direct correlation
> between how much cache a program takes up and the number of cache misses.
> If it isn't possible to assume a direct correlation between how much cache
> a program takes up and the number of cache misses then it isn't possible
> to claim that a specific variation in a program's size has a specific
> impact on how fast a program is ran.  If the subject being discussed is
> the relation between a program's size and the influence that size may have
> on how fast that program runs, particularly due to the number of cache
> misses it generates, then it is obviously relevant.
>
>
> Rui Maciel

Yes, you are right in principle. It is conceivable that a huge
program uses only a small fraction of its executable foot print
and all of it fits in the cache.

It is also conceivable that a program has a huge footprint but
it has almost no jumps so that its cache misses are exceptionally
low because when code is loaded all of it is used in highly
efficient loops.

And there could be more of those situations.

ALl I can tell you is that in my experience both the above
cases aren't found "in nature"...

What I did find of course, is that huge programs tend to
trash around a lot jumping from one small method to the
next one...

THAT is surely a common observation.

jacob

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Why C++ is vastly superior to C Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-05-16 10:08 -0500
  Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "crea" <no@invalid.com> - 2011-05-16 16:13 +0100
  Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-16 17:26 +0200
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 21:21 +0100
      Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-17 08:57 +1200
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 00:12 +0100
  Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> - 2011-05-16 09:29 -0700
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-16 17:37 +0100
      Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-16 10:51 -0700
      Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-17 06:12 -0700
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-17 14:12 +0000
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 00:30 -0500
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-21 11:19 -0700
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 23:41 -0500
              Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-05-23 00:41 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-23 01:02 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-23 06:10 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-24 01:01 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-23 05:59 -0700
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-16 17:24 +0000
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-05-16 12:36 -0500
      Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> - 2011-05-16 11:25 -0700
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-16 21:16 +0200
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 21:11 +0100
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> - 2011-05-16 14:12 -0700
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 00:48 +0100
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-20 23:36 -0500
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 12:25 +0100
              Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:22 -0500
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-16 21:00 +0000
      Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-20 23:33 -0500
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-16 18:53 +0100
      Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 12:05 -0700
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-17 11:09 +1200
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-20 23:58 -0500
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-17 01:23 +0200
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 00:47 +0100
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-17 07:34 +0000
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 11:55 +0100
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 16:30 -0700
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 00:46 +0100
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 01:10 +0100
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-17 11:12 -0700
              Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Gert-Jan de Vos <gert-jan.de.vos@onsneteindhoven.nl> - 2011-05-17 14:30 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-18 16:37 +0000
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-05-18 12:04 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-05-20 10:11 +0000
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 00:21 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-21 08:20 +0000
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:33 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-05-23 13:32 +0000
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-24 00:36 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-05-24 12:26 +0000
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 22:34 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-21 18:27 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-21 18:43 +0000
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-05-21 21:10 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-21 21:48 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-05-21 22:18 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-22 02:31 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-05-22 11:54 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-22 12:23 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-05-22 14:22 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-23 12:01 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-05-21 22:45 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-22 08:56 +1200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-21 16:08 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 13:39 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-22 02:59 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 13:24 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 00:12 -0500
              Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 00:10 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-18 02:38 -0700
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 00:03 -0500
              Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 12:21 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:38 -0500
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-17 06:37 +0100
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 00:28 -0500
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Isaac Gouy <igouy2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-17 08:33 -0700
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-20 23:43 -0500
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 00:47 -0700
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:41 -0500
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-21 08:22 +0000
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:44 -0500
              Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-21 18:34 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 23:37 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-22 05:57 +0000
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 01:22 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-24 15:54 +0000
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-24 15:58 +0000
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 17:19 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 14:09 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 15:00 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> - 2011-05-26 00:02 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-26 09:12 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 00:31 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-05-26 04:53 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 05:24 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-05-26 23:32 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-05-26 23:40 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-26 18:05 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-26 19:10 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-27 00:15 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-26 16:29 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 00:57 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-27 07:56 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-27 09:41 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 01:20 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 01:51 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-27 11:01 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-28 11:35 +0000
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 14:41 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 15:42 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:30 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:27 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-28 07:55 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-28 19:19 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 22:46 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 23:27 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-05-27 01:12 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-27 10:24 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 01:44 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 10:28 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Michael Doubez <michael.doubez@free.fr> - 2011-05-26 00:34 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-26 10:22 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 00:42 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 00:49 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 22:57 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 22:50 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-05-26 08:53 +0000
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 02:16 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:05 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-26 06:01 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:11 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:05 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-26 18:28 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 00:42 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:13 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 00:30 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 07:20 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:14 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 23:39 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Michael Doubez <michael.doubez@free.fr> - 2011-05-26 00:58 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:19 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 17:42 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-05-24 23:38 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 11:15 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-05-25 13:07 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 05:12 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 15:31 +0100
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 23:33 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-05-25 23:21 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-30 22:44 -0500
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-20 23:49 -0500
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-20 23:31 -0500
  Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-16 17:25 +0000
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 13:01 -0700
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-05-26 11:01 -0500
  Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-17 09:02 +1200
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-16 21:16 +0000
      Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-17 09:35 +1200
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-05-16 17:11 -0500
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-16 16:09 -0700
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-17 11:37 +1200
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 16:45 -0700
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-17 08:20 +0000
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Paul Brettschneider <paul.brettschneider@yahoo.fr> - 2011-05-17 15:43 +0200
              Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-05-17 09:59 -0400
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-17 07:09 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-17 07:14 -0700
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-17 16:59 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 01:06 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Paul Brettschneider <paul.brettschneider@yahoo.fr> - 2011-05-17 16:31 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-05-17 16:55 +0200
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-05-17 13:45 +0000
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-17 14:18 +0000
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-17 11:12 +1200
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-17 06:46 +0100
      Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 01:14 -0500
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-21 09:09 +0100
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:46 -0500
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 01:14 -0700
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 08:57 -0500
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 23:48 -0500
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-21 08:25 +0000
          Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 09:08 -0500
            Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-05-21 18:43 +0200
              Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 23:55 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-05-22 21:58 +0200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-22 23:10 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-23 16:14 +1200
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-22 23:38 -0500
                Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-23 16:41 +1200
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 00:19 -0700
      Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 07:35 -0700
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-17 16:13 +0000
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-05-17 08:26 +0000
      Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 01:18 -0500
  Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 15:38 +0800
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 01:27 -0700
  Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-05-18 19:55 +0200
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-05-19 13:50 +0900
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> - 2011-05-20 02:46 -0700
      Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 03:49 -0700
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 01:25 -0500
      Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 12:08 +0100
        Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-21 09:19 -0500
  Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Michael Tsang <miklcct@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 20:26 +0800
    Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 13:28 +0100
  Re: Why a skyscraper is vastly superior to a home jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-05-23 22:18 +0200
    Re: Why a skyscraper is vastly superior to a home "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-24 01:23 -0500
    Re: Why a skyscraper is vastly superior to a home "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-05-24 01:30 -0500
    Re: Why a skyscraper is vastly superior to a home gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 00:44 -0700

csiph-web