MUD-Dev
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: [MUD-Dev] Languages
At 04:07 PM 5/24/97 PST8PDT, you wrote:
>> Remember that C++ gives you multiple ways to do inlines.
>>
>> Infact there is NO reason why C++ shoudl have ANY more voerhead then C IF
>> youvundertsnad what the compiler is doing and code to it correctly.
>>
>> Typicly the reason C++ code ends up slower is due to mis-coding of
>> constructors by peopel who do NOT understand whats going on underneath.
>>
>> JK
>
>This is my main objection about C++: one should be able to use a language
>after reading the *specification*, not the bloody compiler source! :P :P :P
'comon miro... how many times have you coded the following...
byte *t1,t2;
...
for (i=0;i<length;i++) *t1++ = *t2++;
or something simialr?
Such array walkign is MUCh faster then array access with [], but yould
never guess that unless you understood what C is doing.
JK
- Thread context:
- Re: [MUD-Dev] Languages, (continued)
- Re: [MUD-Dev] Languages,
Chris Gray cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA, Sun 25 May 1997, 05:11 GMT
- Re: [MUD-Dev] Languages,
Cynbe ru Taren cynbe#laurel,actlab.utexas.edu, Sun 25 May 1997, 05:33 GMT
- Re: [MUD-Dev] Languages,
Jeff Kesselman jeffk#tenetwork,com, Sun 25 May 1997, 05:43 GMT
- Re: [MUD-Dev] Languages,
Jeff Kesselman jeffk#tenetwork,com, Sun 25 May 1997, 08:10 GMT
- Re: [MUD-Dev] Languages,
Jeff Kesselman jeffk#tenetwork,com, Sun 25 May 1997, 08:14 GMT
- Re: [MUD-Dev] Languages,
Chris Gray cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA, Mon 26 May 1997, 00:10 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]