Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #13049
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: C++ Memory Management Question |
| Date | 2012-01-04 12:15 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <9mhggjFpeqU2@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <jdsjvs$2em2$1@adenine.netfront.net> <e8Kdnfm9b7RMR5zSnZ2dnUVZ7vOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <jdsnod$2ip5$1@adenine.netfront.net> <FoidnVZessS9g5_SnZ2dnUVZ7oWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <rVJMq.69062$h94.59227@news.usenetserver.com> |
On 01/ 4/12 09:53 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > > Define "use C++ properly". Isn't "properly" rather context-dependent? > > For example, I've been writing in C++ since 1989. Almost all of it > (several hundreds of thousands of lines) has been written commercially for > hypervisors (one for 3Leaf, one for SGI) and operating systems for very > large systems (256 processors in 1995) (Burroughs/Unisys). > > In such code, one doesn't have an RTL, and the run-time overhead of exceptions > and newer features such as run-time typing is prohibitive. Shouldn't that be in the past tense? I'm not aware of any contemporary compilers were the overhead of using exceptions is any more than C style return checking. In every comparison I've run since the late 90s, exceptions have been faster. Also nothing that calls its self a C++ compiler lacks a standard library. > Would you argue that > such code is not "proper"? I wouldn't. So exceptions aren't always the "proper" > answer to "how do I determine if my allocation failed (succeeded)?". Nor would I. I have also worked in situations where "C with classes" (and even "C with function overloading") was a good fit. > The first OS was written using cfront 2.1[*]. There were no exceptions, templates, > funky casts, etc. Using classes to encapsulate data and associated methods with > data was of enough value that we felt it was the correct choice of implementation > language. When 3.0 came out with templates, exceptions etc, we eschewed those > features due to the additional cost at run-time (space bloat in the case of templates). Unfortunately memories of those long past runtime performance issues have stuck around. -- Ian Collins
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
C++ Memory Management Question Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 08:56 -0500
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-12-31 09:44 -0500
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 10:17 -0500
Re: C++ Memory Management Question "MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-31 12:56 -0600
Re: C++ Memory Management Question jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2011-12-31 19:05 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Carlo Milanesi <carlo.nospam.milanesi@libero.it> - 2011-12-31 18:18 +0100
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-12-31 13:04 -0500
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Carlo Milanesi <carlo.nospam.milanesi@libero.it> - 2011-12-31 19:42 +0100
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 23:25 -0800
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2012-01-01 09:39 -0500
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 08:20 -0800
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-01-01 19:05 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-01 19:36 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-01-01 19:49 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-02 11:26 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-01-02 14:32 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-02 15:54 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-01-02 16:26 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-02 16:58 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-01-02 21:14 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-03 11:11 +1300
Re: C++ Memory Management Question scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2012-01-03 20:53 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-01-03 21:21 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-04 12:15 +1300
Re: C++ Memory Management Question gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 08:20 -0800
Re: C++ Memory Management Question "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-02 22:24 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-01-02 22:55 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-02 23:27 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-10 01:01 -0800
Re: C++ Memory Management Question 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-02 21:45 -0800
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2012-01-03 00:32 -0800
Re: C++ Memory Management Question "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-03 17:34 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-10 00:47 -0800
Re: C++ Memory Management Question BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2012-01-10 22:57 -0800
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-03 09:31 +1300
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-01-02 21:02 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-03 11:09 +1300
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-01-01 18:57 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-01-01 22:04 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Carlo Milanesi <carlo.nospam.milanesi@libero.it> - 2012-01-02 00:37 +0100
Re: C++ Memory Management Question yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2012-01-09 17:41 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Carlo Milanesi <carlo.milanesi@libero.it> - 2012-01-13 08:14 -0800
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-01-01 18:05 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-31 07:25 -0800
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Torsten Mueller <dev-null@shared-files.de> - 2011-12-31 16:41 +0100
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-01-01 09:16 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 16:48 -0500
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2012-01-03 00:02 -0800
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> - 2012-01-03 12:53 -0500
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-01-03 19:46 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 00:11 -0800
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-01-04 09:30 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-01-04 19:28 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-01-04 22:09 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-01-05 11:43 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2012-01-01 18:13 +0100
Re: C++ Memory Management Question "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-01-01 20:11 +0100
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 16:51 -0500
Re: C++ Memory Management Question Simon Quinn <sq@nospam.com> - 2012-01-05 07:54 +0000
Re: C++ Memory Management Question darylew@gmail.com - 2012-01-10 10:19 -0800
csiph-web