The New C++: Lay Down Your Guns, Knives, and Clubs
Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Wed 15th Jun 2011 07:32 UTC, submitted by ebasconp
General Development "The recently finished C++ ISO standard, with the working name of C++0x, is due to be published this summer, following the finishing touches to the ISO spec language and standards wonks agreed upon in March."
E-mail Print r 2   94 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/j6b
Thread beginning with comment 477693
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[11]: Basically, awesome
by FealDorf on Sat 18th Jun 2011 13:41 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: Basically, awesome"
FealDorf
Member since:
2008-01-07

If you're suggesting that, say, vtables can run as fast as templates, then I wanna see some benchmarks.

Unless you're talking about aggressive optimisations, which can be applied to BOTH static and dynamic languages.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[12]: Basically, awesome
by moondevil on Sat 18th Jun 2011 15:18 in reply to "RE[11]: Basically, awesome"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

No.

I am saying that a language is not fast or slow. The way it is defined might allow or disallow certain optimizations to be done, but that is it.

All languages can be implemented as an interpreter, with JIT support or a plain old compiler. It is just a matter of ROI of the implementation.

I am old enough to remember BBS discussions about how slow C was and everyone would code in assembly until the end of the world.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[13]: Basically, awesome
by FealDorf on Sat 18th Jun 2011 15:40 in reply to "RE[12]: Basically, awesome"
FealDorf Member since:
2008-01-07

But assembly IS still faster than C. Only that C is overall much more efficient to code in than assembly and that computers are fast enough to ignore the difference. Likewise, OO was also considered slow but the computers grew fast enough. However, falling back would still show a significant to dramatic speed boost, only that it's not noteworthy.

Likewise, I prefer to code in Ruby with its heavy reflection than Go anyday (mind you, i still prefer C++ over Go). However, I don't see why C++ should add reflection. Instead, adding these features would instead slow it down IMO and make it a less likeable alternative than more flexible languages. Besides, Objective-C kinda does the same job..

Reply Parent Score: 1