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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25529 > unrolled thread

Re: Java vs C++

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Java vs C++ Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-02-07 15:01 +0100
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:49 -0500

#25529 — Re: Java vs C++

Lew wrote:
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" spat:
>>> Exercise for the reader: explain why Arne Vajhøj is wrong. For extra 
>>> credit,
>>> list the implicit preconceptions that might have led to such a wrong
>>> conclusion.
> 
> "Exercise for the reader" because the writer couldn't come up with any 
> logical or reasoned arguments, so he waves his hands and exercises 
> trollishness instead.

Not at all. The reason is exactly as already stated, namely that people 
seem to assume that the linker has no intelligence, or that there is a 
linker in first place. Nevertheless, the C++ standard doesn't even 
define linking, and the world is no longer that simple. Thus, I still 
don't see how this argument applies. Surely the C++ world works 
different from the java world, but saying that there is no duplicate 
code in Java or that there is always code duplication in C++ is surely 
wrong.

Greetings,
	Thomas

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#26149

On 07-02-2011 09:01, Thomas Richter wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" spat:
>>>> Exercise for the reader: explain why Arne Vajhøj is wrong. For extra
>>>> credit,
>>>> list the implicit preconceptions that might have led to such a wrong
>>>> conclusion.
>>
>> "Exercise for the reader" because the writer couldn't come up with any
>> logical or reasoned arguments, so he waves his hands and exercises
>> trollishness instead.
>
> Not at all. The reason is exactly as already stated, namely that people
> seem to assume that the linker has no intelligence, or that there is a
> linker in first place. Nevertheless, the C++ standard doesn't even
> define linking, and the world is no longer that simple. Thus, I still
> don't see how this argument applies. Surely the C++ world works
> different from the java world, but saying that there is no duplicate
> code in Java or that there is always code duplication in C++ is surely
> wrong.

It how the simple implementations do it.

It is what the common implementations do it.

What various super smart optimizers may do is pretty
far fetched.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web