Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C

From	Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com>
Subject	Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C
Date	2011-05-17 06:37 +0100
Message-Id	<pan.2011.05.17.05.37.16.203000@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
References	<iqremk$ltg$1@dont-email.me> <b0310eb7-ebaa-4935-8979-e907f9d64e55@x6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <pan.2011.05.16.17.52.49.672000@nowhere.com> <4a5f986b-c0c5-44e6-8668-e5d0061bb99f@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <C-C++-20110517005045@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Organization	Zen Internet

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 16 May 2011 22:58:28 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:

>   According to
> 
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/...
> 
>   C++ is not much faster than C

Actually, it says:

> Which programming languages are fastest?
> 
> No. Which programming language implementations have the fastest
> benchmark programs?

You won't notice the difference between C and C++ until you start looking
at non-trivial programs.

At the lowest level, there isn't really much difference between C and C++.
Some early C++ compilers were little more than preprocessors which
translated C++ to C in a fairly direct manner.

But the abstraction involved in writing a non-trivial program in C tends
to require performance compromises which can often be avoided in C++ by
the use of templates.

>   and according to
> 
> http://www.tiobe.com/content/paperinfo/tpci/images/tpci_trends.png
> 
>   , C++ has lost half of its »market share« in relation to C
>   since 2003.

Aside from the fact that those numbers have about as much rigour as
reading tea leaves, that doesn't really surprise me.

At one time, the software development market was split mostly between C
and C++, with "all other languages combined" coming in third place. Since
then, several other languages (e.g. Java, C#) have managed to obtain
critical mass in application development, other programming models (e.g.
web applications) have taken a significant slice of the market, and
computers have gotten faster, meaning that it's more realistic to trade
some amount of efficiency for other factors (reliability, portability,
development cost).

>   However, C++ is much more complicated and large than C.

I don't think you'll find any disagreement there.

>   When the market share continues to decline, C++ will become
>   a legacy language of the 90s.

It won't become a "legacy" language until it stops being a sensible choice
for new code in any context, which will only happen when something else
fills its current niche. That niche will get smaller, due to increasing
hardware performance making software efficiency less critical, but it
isn't going to go away.

You can see the trade-offs at work in the enterprise arena, where Java has
made huge inroads. The increased robustness (from bounds checking, safe
pointers, checked exceptions etc) and reduced development costs (from
having all of C++'s complicated aspects eliminated) more than outweight
the efficiency penalties. When you're writing software for a single
customer, buying faster hardware is cheaper than hiring more programmers
and/or more-experienced programmers.

Conversely, the trade-offs work the other way for game development, where
you're looking to sell tens of millions of copies at tens of dollars per
copy, and want the best possible performance on whatever hardware the user
has.

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 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 gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 07:20 -0700
                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> - 2011-05-20 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 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