Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #5634

Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C

Path csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
From Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com>
Subject Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C
Date Thu, 26 May 2011 18:28:02 +0100
User-Agent Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.)
Message-Id <pan.2011.05.26.17.27.36.516000@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> <ir7m41$29f$4@dont-email.me> <4dd7762f$0$2847$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> <ir8hln$k7d$5@dont-email.me> <ir8pip$ht6$1@news.ett.com.ua> <ira50o$mjq$1@dont-email.me> <4dd8a5e4$0$2871$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> <code-size-20110522170846@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <4ddbd597$0$2813$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> <functions-20110524181258@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <FsqdnaCYEPQHR0bQnZ2dnUVZ8sednZ2d@giganews.com> <optimization-20110525144822@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <4ddd0b6a$0$24154$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> <premature-20110526023855@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding 8bit
Lines 37
Organization Zen Internet
NNTP-Posting-Host ef78c5c2.news.zen.co.uk
X-Trace DXC=kAl6ZGQaSWVaYWh7c\Cn3TYjZGX^207P[`<MJMoM3PF]3kmFT7@n@YZFJHPa[N739P;NCGmJ6WPIUKG9@CgUlFbX
X-Complaints-To abuse@zen.co.uk
Xref x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c++:5634

Show key headers only | View raw

On Thu, 26 May 2011 00:39:59 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:

>>>The whole point of C++ is premature optimization
>>Why do you believe that "the whole point of C++ is premature 
>>optimization"?
> 
>   Design decision in C++ are usually decided in favor of
>   run-time efficiency.

>   Since this optimization is /always/ done, by pure /choice of
>   the language/, it can be called premature.

Only if you're really desperate to make a "premature optimisation"
argument.

The alternative, i.e. to use a higher-level but less efficient language,
results in the optimisation never being performed at all, even in the
finished product.

Some optimisations must inherently be performed at the outset, if they are
to be performed at all. If you adopt an approach which is structurally
inefficient, then the only way to get rid of the inefficiency is to start
over with a more efficient structure. That doesn't make such optimisations
"premature".

Premature optimisation means performing "optimisations" before you have
sufficient knowledge to determine what is actually optimal.

This is primarily a problem with "code first, design later" development,
where you don't really know what you should be doing until you have a
working prototype (either because the problem isn't amenable to structured
development, or the programmer isn't).

OTOH, if you have a good understanding of the problem, it's entirely
possible (and reasonable) to make optimisation decisions long before you
start writing code.

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

Thread

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

csiph-web