Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #9589 > unrolled thread
| Started by | KaiWen <wenkai1987@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-09-01 01:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2011-09-03 15:11 -0700 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 114 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? KaiWen <wenkai1987@gmail.com> - 2011-09-01 01:41 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-01 21:15 +1200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? "Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2011-09-01 11:48 +0200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-09-01 15:34 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? KaiWen <wenkai1987@gmail.com> - 2011-09-01 19:09 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-02 14:39 +1200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Krice <paulkp@mbnet.fi> - 2011-09-01 22:33 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-09-02 01:12 -0500
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-09-03 15:25 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-09-04 01:34 -0500
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-04 02:33 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 11:00 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-09-01 23:23 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-02 03:00 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-09-02 09:39 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-02 12:44 +0100
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-02 09:59 +0100
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-02 11:25 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-03 05:51 +0000
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-03 01:45 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-03 20:53 +1200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-03 10:49 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-04 08:15 +1200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-03 17:50 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-03 16:28 +0000
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-03 10:42 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> - 2011-09-04 11:34 +0200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-04 09:04 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-04 18:04 +0000
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-09-04 18:44 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-04 23:26 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-05 08:01 +0000
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-05 11:45 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-06 06:30 +0000
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-06 07:22 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-06 16:25 +0900
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-06 07:14 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-07 12:28 +0900
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-07 16:49 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 18:45 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-08 15:56 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-09-03 15:32 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-03 19:16 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-05 00:28 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-05 12:34 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-06 07:51 +1200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-05 14:06 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-06 00:32 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-06 07:33 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-07 02:52 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-08 16:24 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-09 11:38 +1200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-08 21:39 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-09 19:01 +1200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-09 02:45 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-09 03:23 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-14 23:12 +0000
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-09 02:40 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-09 11:19 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-09-09 15:42 -0500
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-09 14:24 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-09-09 18:22 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-10 10:11 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-09-10 10:54 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-10 14:28 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-11 12:29 +0900
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-11 00:45 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 00:39 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-12 18:06 +0900
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 16:46 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-13 10:20 +0900
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 13:16 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-11 04:53 +0100
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-11 14:51 +0900
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-10 07:46 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? KaiWen <wenkai1987@gmail.com> - 2011-09-06 03:10 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-06 22:50 +1200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? KaiWen <wenkai1987@gmail.com> - 2011-09-06 04:48 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-09-07 09:45 +0000
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-07 21:51 +1200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? KaiWen <wenkai1987@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 00:15 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-09-08 12:14 +0000
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? KaiWen <wenkai1987@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 07:14 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Asger-P <junk@asger-p.dk> - 2011-09-06 13:52 +0200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-09-06 11:47 -0500
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-09-06 11:50 -0500
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Asger-P <junk@asger-p.dk> - 2011-09-06 21:04 +0200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-09-06 20:37 +0100
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-09-06 15:10 -0500
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-09-06 21:14 +0100
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Asger-P <junk@asger-p.dk> - 2011-09-07 00:40 +0200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-09-06 23:59 +0100
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-09-06 16:26 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-09-06 14:55 -0500
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Asger-P <junk@asger-p.dk> - 2011-09-07 00:51 +0200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-09-06 23:29 -0500
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Asger-P <junk@asger-p.dk> - 2011-09-07 09:06 +0200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-07 19:09 +1200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-07 13:19 +0100
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-07 13:01 +0000
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 14:26 +0100
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Asger-P <junk@asger-p.dk> - 2011-09-07 15:49 +0200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-08 22:49 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-09 15:25 +0900
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-09 02:50 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-09 03:26 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-09 03:25 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-06 00:24 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-09-06 13:57 +0000
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-06 08:18 -0700
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-03 08:34 +0100
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? "A" <a@a.a> - 2011-09-01 11:50 +0200
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-01 10:53 +0100
Re: Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C 10% ? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-09-03 15:11 -0700
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 14:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e677102$0$6807$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #9868 |
Asger-P wrote: > Well then I better ask how You get the console window to stay open > long enough to read the result, when doing a build and run.? > if You dont use something like getch(); Doesn't windows provide a command line? It it doesn't then you can always run your command line program through some script which, after running the program, calls pause. At least this was possible in the Windows 9[58] days. Do the recent incantations of windows still support batch files? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Asger-P <junk@asger-p.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 15:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <op.v1fx1eb12juju3@ajwin7> |
| In reply to | #9900 |
Hi Rui On the: 07. of september-2011 At: 15:26 Rui Maciel wrote: > Asger-P wrote: > >> Well then I better ask how You get the console window to stay open >> long enough to read the result, when doing a build and run.? >> if You dont use something like getch(); > > Doesn't windows provide a command line? Ooh, yes and it also handles batch files. I have posted a question in embarcadero.public.cppbuilder.ide to see if there is a setting that will do, if not I think I'll stick with std::cin.get(); Thanks anyway Best regards Asger-P
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 22:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <j4c9cr$t30$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #9868 |
On 9/7/2011 12:06 AM, Asger-P wrote: > > Hi Paavo > > On the: 07. of september-2011 At: 06:29 Paavo Helde wrote: > > >>>>> getch(); >>>> >>>> Not a standard function >>> >>> It's just me never doing any commandline apps. ;-) >>> Do You really care about that :O >> >> It means other people can not just copy-paste your code and compile-run >> it by themselves. > > Well then I better ask how You get the console window to stay open > long enough to read the result, when doing a build and run.? > if You dont use something like getch(); > FWIW, there are also "getc();" and "fgetc(stdin);" which are at least more standard, but are also C-style, unlike "cin.get();" which is more properly C++ (by whatever logic this makes sense, I don't get people sometimes, as everything works either way, but whatever...). but, stdio vs iostreams is another long and eventually pointless debate...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-09 15:25 +0900 |
| Message-ID | <buo7h5ixmf5.fsf@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com> |
| In reply to | #9954 |
BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> writes: > FWIW, there are also "getc();" and "fgetc(stdin);" which are at least > more standard, but are also C-style, unlike "cin.get();" which is more > properly C++ (by whatever logic this makes sense, I don't get people > sometimes, as everything works either way, but whatever...). > > but, stdio vs iostreams is another long and eventually pointless debate... No doubt, but it does make sense in many cases to at least prefer one or another, because _mixing_ them can be problematic and/or inefficient. -Miles -- Alliance, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-09 02:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <j4cnhv$shp$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #9957 |
On 9/8/2011 11:25 PM, Miles Bader wrote: > BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com> writes: >> FWIW, there are also "getc();" and "fgetc(stdin);" which are at least >> more standard, but are also C-style, unlike "cin.get();" which is more >> properly C++ (by whatever logic this makes sense, I don't get people >> sometimes, as everything works either way, but whatever...). >> >> but, stdio vs iostreams is another long and eventually pointless debate... > > No doubt, but it does make sense in many cases to at least prefer one > or another, because _mixing_ them can be problematic and/or > inefficient. > probably... but, yeah, I, unsurprisingly, fall more on the stdio side of this issue, and personally don't like iostreams as much on an aesthetic basis (visually, it still seems a bit much like, someone, long ago, was like "wow, cool, I have operator overloading" and decided to make heavy use of it for the console interface, and whether or not this is a good idea? who really knows...).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-09 03:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88dd092f-82a1-4b24-81d1-35e513b4e76c@o10g2000vby.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9965 |
On Sep 9, 10:50 am, BGB <cr88...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 9/8/2011 11:25 PM, Miles Bader wrote: > > > BGB<cr88...@hotmail.com> writes: > >> FWIW, there are also "getc();" and "fgetc(stdin);" which are at least > >> more standard, but are also C-style, unlike "cin.get();" which is more > >> properly C++ (by whatever logic this makes sense, I don't get people > >> sometimes, as everything works either way, but whatever...). > > >> but, stdio vs iostreams is another long and eventually pointless debate... > > > No doubt, but it does make sense in many cases to at least prefer one > > or another, because _mixing_ them can be problematic and/or > > inefficient. > > probably... > > but, yeah, I, unsurprisingly, fall more on the stdio side of this issue, > and personally don't like iostreams as much on an aesthetic basis > (visually, it still seems a bit much like, someone, long ago, was like > "wow, cool, I have operator overloading" and decided to make heavy use > of it for the console interface, and whether or not this is a good idea? > who really knows...). I have to agree it gets pretty ugly as soon as you want to format anything. I seem to rad the manual a lot more tahn I remmeber doing with printf() (but maybe I forget how much of a PITA printf() was in the beginning)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-09 03:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ebe6866-243a-4e80-b5e8-0e27e01ff065@h7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9957 |
On Sep 9, 7:25 am, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote: > BGB <cr88...@hotmail.com> writes: > > FWIW, there are also "getc();" and "fgetc(stdin);" which are at least > > more standard, but are also C-style, unlike "cin.get();" which is more > > properly C++ (by whatever logic this makes sense, I don't get people > > sometimes, as everything works either way, but whatever...). > > > but, stdio vs iostreams is another long and eventually pointless debate... > > No doubt, but it does make sense in many cases to at least prefer one > or another, because _mixing_ them can be problematic and/or > inefficient. and iostreams are extensible. It's hard to make printf() print a user defined type but relativly easy to make operator<< do it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-06 00:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51b55bf4-59bb-45c2-9f73-f34cc2dc8e2a@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9764 |
On Sep 5, 8:34 pm, BGB <cr88...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 9/5/2011 12:28 AM, Nick Keighley wrote: > > On Sep 3, 9:45 am, BGB<cr88...@hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> > >> also, just how many people really use "qsort()" anyways?... > > > If I'm coding in C and I want to sort something. My first thought > > would be qsort()! If it was too slow only then would I consider hand > > coding it. Surely any constructively lazy person would use an existing > > facility rather hand-roll their own! > > different styles for different sorts... why? Why not use something that is good-enough? Scraping an extra nano- second off an infrequently run routine is hardly ever worth the bother. > actually, in my case I would probably far more likely copy-paste it and > then edit it to the new use. > > copy-paste is a powerful tool which is often disparaged and overlooked. copy-paste is the route of all evil. I've suggested (only half joking) that the single best way to improve the quality of software world-wide is to disable the copy-paste facility. Or slightly hurt the programmer every time he uses it. > but, one would typically write it themselves initially (before > subjecting it to endless copy-paste). gag. Why not package it a proper reusable component? (function, template, macro, package). Then just reuse it. You're trying to drag us back to the software engineering of the neolithic. > >> IME, it is more often one of those largely forgotten functions (it is > >> there, but more often people write out their own sort logic manually). > > > why?! There must be nearly as many badly written sort routines as > > there are badly implemented linked lists! > > if people were not doing it, then one would not be encountering them. so tell them to stop! Don't encourage them! > that one is encountering so many "badly written sort functions" means > that there are equally many (probably actually, far more) people off > writing them. > > hence, the case stands... hence use the bloody library routine <snip> > there are also plenty of things often done with C strings as well that > can make them faster, such as interning them so that one can check > string equality using '==' on the pointers, rather than using > "!strcmp()", ... > > in my case, I tend to avoid "stdrup()" as well, as generally "strdup()" > is a good way to "make bad things happen" which is probably why strdup() is non-standard > (slow, tears through huge > amounts of memory, leaves the program responsible to free them, ...), [...] <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-06 13:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j458t6$l3h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9687 |
In article <j3speo$h90$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote: >On 9/2/2011 10:51 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >> KaiWen<wenkai1987@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 2. In runtime, the speed of the program written by C++ is<= the same >>> program written by C >> >> Actually many equivalent constructs in C and C++ are such that it's >> the exact opposite: C++ is significantly faster than C. >> >> Just two simple examples are qsort() vs. std::sort() , and strlen() >> vs std::string::length(). Especially in the first case it's precisely >> the language features that help the compiler make a faster executable. > >this again, comes down to coding practices... > > >also, just how many people really use "qsort()" anyways?... >IME, it is more often one of those largely forgotten functions (it is >there, but more often people write out their own sort logic manually). > >(actually, it seems to be fairly common practice in C land for people to >largely ignore much of the standard library, and to write their own >logic for doing things). Which has two effects: 1- Waste programmer time. Time that could otherwised be used to improve the rest of the program. 2- One of: a) Best case: an equivalently well implementation as a quality std library b) A working but somewhat poorer implementation that would would have been produced but a good dedicated team and tested extensively. c) a buggy implementation that comes back to bite you. So even in the best case scenario, you are loosing if there is not a quality standard library available. One of the problem with C is that the basic C library offers very little and nobody agrees on what is a quality generally accepted extension to it. So peoples spend time reimplementing the wheel or re-learning a different third party library. Yan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-06 08:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <j45dk9$btj$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #9800 |
On 9/6/2011 6:57 AM, none Yannick Tremblay wrote: > In article<j3speo$h90$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 9/2/2011 10:51 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>> KaiWen<wenkai1987@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 2. In runtime, the speed of the program written by C++ is<= the same >>>> program written by C >>> >>> Actually many equivalent constructs in C and C++ are such that it's >>> the exact opposite: C++ is significantly faster than C. >>> >>> Just two simple examples are qsort() vs. std::sort() , and strlen() >>> vs std::string::length(). Especially in the first case it's precisely >>> the language features that help the compiler make a faster executable. >> >> this again, comes down to coding practices... >> >> >> also, just how many people really use "qsort()" anyways?... >> IME, it is more often one of those largely forgotten functions (it is >> there, but more often people write out their own sort logic manually). >> >> (actually, it seems to be fairly common practice in C land for people to >> largely ignore much of the standard library, and to write their own >> logic for doing things). > > Which has two effects: > > 1- Waste programmer time. Time that could otherwised be used to > improve the rest of the program. > yes, but doesn't matter if other people are wasting their time, only if they are wasting ones' own time (or oneself is wasting ones' own time and has potentially better things to be doing). given enough people, and a lack of profit motive, then the cost/value of most effort ultimately tends towards zero (actually, it is RMS's ideal to impose this on all software, but this is not agreeable IMO, as commercial people doing their thing still manage to deliver a lot more that is usable to "typical end users", and to produce higher-quality games with better production values, ...). it is like, at the moment the high-point of production values in FOSS games is still only really up to what commercial games had 10-12 years ago (sadly, we don't see any Portal or Portal 2 analogues or similar coming from FOSS land at present...). granted, GIMP and FireFox are pretty good (and Internet Explorer is still generally "teh suck"...). > 2- One of: > a) Best case: an equivalently well implementation as a quality std > library > b) A working but somewhat poorer implementation that would would > have been produced but a good dedicated team and tested > extensively. > c) a buggy implementation that comes back to bite you. > > So even in the best case scenario, you are loosing if there is not a > quality standard library available. > > One of the problem with C is that the basic C library offers very > little and nobody agrees on what is a quality generally accepted > extension to it. So peoples spend time reimplementing the wheel or > re-learning a different third party library. > fair enough. this is probably why, for the most part, projects tend to end up creating their own library "platform" and building their code on this, rather than using much of the standard C library. but, then one ends up with issues like largish apps (500 kloc or 1 Mloc or more) built on things like GTK+, including many components with nothing to do with GUI, which has its own drawbacks. better options may well just be someone writing their own set of run-time libraries (this is basically the main area where my "C restriction" is in effect, application code does not have this restriction, and libraries may be C++ if they are more "internal logic" than "external API"). another option is to use a less-nasty framework (than GTK+), such as SDL or similar. granted, the above doesn't apply to large pre-existing apps, which may already be heavily built around GTK+ or whatever. in some ways, writing software is often not too much different from throwing on vasaline in place of thermal grease (say, because one doesn't have any thermal grease). it is maybe not as good, or maybe will all leak away after a while, but it is a good enough temporary fix until next time the issue comes up again (where one does have the grease, or worse case, they throw on a new coat of vasaline...). actually, it works fairly good for things like electric motors, and apparently for 4-cycle engines (like in cars/...) as well. (but, I am more wary of crisco, as things have turned out badly before with this one... just because it works good in ovens apparently doesn't make it good for electronics even if both use-cases have to deal with heat...). it is not just vegetable shortening, but maybe also electrical shortening... or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-03 08:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2011.09.03.07.34.37.266000@nowhere.com> |
| In reply to | #9640 |
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 19:09:01 -0700, KaiWen wrote: > I know I can develop faster by using C++, but the speed of program > in runtime is important too. So witch one is important? Can anyone > give a suggestion? C code is usually either valid C++ code or is trivially modifiable to be valid C++ code. Whether such code runs faster when compiled as C or as C++ depends upon the quality of the compiler, not the language. However: C++ has additional features over C. Whether those features make the program faster or slower depends upon how you use them. No language feature is inherently "slow". Even if a particular feature has a performance cost, if it simplifies development then the time saved can be spent optimising other parts of the code. The question isn't which language you would use if you wanted absolutely optimal code (otherwise, everyone would use assembler). The question is which language will produce the best result given the development time available. The answer to that question depends more upon the skill of the programmers than on the language. On one hand, C++ has features which will allow a good programmer to both improve performance and reduce development time simultaneously. On the other hand, not all programmers are good programmers, and C++ provides not-so-good programmers with far greater scope for messing up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A" <a@a.a> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-01 11:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j3nkib$2as$1@gregory.bnet.hr> |
| In reply to | #9589 |
It is not actually the language that might be slower because you can do equal things in C and C++ that execute approximately the same speed, what matters might be overhead that some C++ constructs imply on the program. But that is only if you use such constructs... such as templates for example. Even templates can also be used in a right and wrong way. So the answer is far from being general. In good hands each tool can work wonders or be just as average as any other tool. For example: std::vector<int> abc; abc.at(0) = 1; // is slower than abc[0] = 1; // than this because of range checking In C you don't even have such constructs so there is nothing to compare it to. But if you use at() which does some additional overhead due to range checking then of course it is somewhat slower than the other version. It is like you would call more functions in C, that would execute slower due to heap/stack allocation etc. But in C++ you could as well write: char[] abc = "abc"; abc[0] = "x"; that would work equally fast in C or C++. In general, there is only one REAL issue - which of the two you find more valuable - the convenience that C++ offers over C to speedup development... or... your time.... to finish a certain project (even if it is a bit slower). Remember, programmers time is never getting more expensive it may only get cheaper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-01 10:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e5f560d$0$6001$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #9589 |
KaiWen wrote: > Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C > 10% ? Why would they be? Just for the sake of argument, here are some benchmarks comparing the results of a C implementation to those of a C++ implementation. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/cpp.php http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programming-languages-are- fastest.php?gpp=on&gcc=on&calc=chart Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-03 15:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96aeaddb-64b4-4393-b6d0-62662ad82546@g31g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9589 |
On Sep 1, 9:41 am, KaiWen <wenkai1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Generally, are the programs written by C++ slower than written by C > 10% ? No. In general, if performance matters, programs written in C++ are significantly faster than those written in C. (And if it doesn't matter, who cares.) C++ offers better encapsulation, and better encapsulation makes it significantly easier to exploit the profiler output. -- James Kanze
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web