Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #18809
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ |
| Date | 2014-10-18 15:42 -0700 |
| Organization | Nightsong/Fort GNOX |
| Message-ID | <7x8ukd9f0c.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> (permalink) |
| References | <543ead04$0$15847$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> <m1mmar.23s.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de> <caf18hF6lueU1@mid.individual.net> <7x4mv1tdyv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <VUA0w.496001$_u1.143324@fx30.am4> |
Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: >> use containers of multiple types without having to paste code all >> over the place. > but although /you/ don't have to make duplications in the > source code, doesn't the /compiler/ have to expand them in > the object code. C++ templates do work like that, so you indeed get bloat in the object code (just as if you'd manually duplicated code like you'd have to in C), but the source code becomes more uniform and maintainable. The bloat isn't a law of nature but rather reflects C++'s design goal of zero-overhead abstraction. Other languages like Haskell can avoid the bloat by supporting polymorphic functions implemented by passing type info at runtime, taking a slight penalty in speed. I'm not sure how Ada handles this. Ada has generic but I don't know how they work. There's also some generics in C11 or C14 that looked nice though I don't remember any details by now. >> OO on the other hand has become somewhat unfashionable in C++. > Probably because they seen "objects done right" in other > languages! :) No I mean at least among some PL geeks, OO has become unfashionable in general, not just in C++. They see it as a 1990's thing that didn't fulfill its promises. Smalltalk has faded to obscurity and Java is a post-Cobol Cobol, etc.
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 19:21 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-15 10:36 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 19:48 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-15 21:25 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 23:28 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-15 23:40 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-15 10:58 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-15 21:03 +0300
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-15 11:11 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 20:26 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-15 20:44 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 23:30 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-16 18:19 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2014-10-16 23:12 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2014-10-17 13:25 +0800
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-17 18:43 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-18 12:29 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-18 11:44 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-18 22:25 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-18 15:42 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-19 11:03 +0300
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2014-10-19 17:46 -0500
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-19 16:28 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-10-20 02:47 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-19 09:34 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-19 17:00 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 08:50 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 11:57 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 12:11 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-20 22:36 +0300
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2014-10-21 00:36 +0000
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 08:52 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 11:56 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-19 10:52 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-19 17:16 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-18 23:02 +0000
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-19 09:45 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-15 22:12 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 23:35 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-15 19:10 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2014-10-16 10:34 +0300
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-16 10:10 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2014-10-16 01:06 -0500
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid - 2014-10-16 08:32 +0000
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-16 20:54 +0200
csiph-web