Linux-Development-Sys Digest #903, Volume #6 Mon, 28 Jun 99 17:14:38 EDT
Contents:
PTHREADS kernel/user level threading? (Dave Erdmann)
Re: Another Windows developer looking for a good IDE (David L. Bilbey)
binutils compile error (Klaus Schneider)
Re: Another Windows developer looking for a good IDE (Jonathan Abbey)
Re: You can now use Winmodems in Linux!!!!!!! (Doug DeJulio)
Re: NT kernel guy playing with Linux (No Spam)
Re: PTHREADS kernel/user level threading? (Matthew Carl Schumaker)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Mike McDonald)
Another Windows developer looking for a good IDE (David L Jarvis)
Re: Why not C++ ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why not C++ (Greg Comeau)
Re: Why not C++ (Greg Comeau)
Re: Why not C++ ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why not C++ (Greg Comeau)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Erdmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PTHREADS kernel/user level threading?
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:46:53 GMT
Hi I thinking of writing a threaded server
on the latest Red Hat 6.0 Linux distribution
using Pthreads.
I am wondering if the pthreads implementation on
Linux does any kernel level threading, or both
kernel and user level threading.
For instance if I have a dual CPU system can my server
take advantage of both CPUs having two concurrent
threads in the same process running on both CPUs
at once?
Does anyone know if this is supported or is there just
user level threading where the process is shunted onto
one CPU and does its threading on its own, and can't use
the multiple CPU's?
Thanks,
-Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: David L. Bilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Another Windows developer looking for a good IDE
Date: 28 Jun 1999 17:59:49 GMT
+-----On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:15:29 -0400, David L Jarvis spoke unto us:----------
| At the risk of starting another religious war, let me prefix this by
| saying
| I come from Unix background and yes I love the command line :-)
| But some years ago I was forced to get into app development for Windoze
| (I should
| have retired my keyboard instead).
| What I am looking for are recommendations for development environments.
| I've spent two days reading every post in the linux.development groups,
| so yes
| I've seen a lot of product names. But most of them are for C++ and I
| don't
| feel that would be the best tool for me to use. What I need to do is
| develop a
| working prototype as quickly as possible.
| Specifically, I need to display a "treeview" (hierarchical tree
| structure), and a
| "listview" (row/column grid type structure).
| In the VisualBasic/Windoze world, I would simply drop a "treeview
| control"
| on a form and be writing code in minutes. Then drop a "listview
| control" on it
| and do the same. (Please spare me the philosophizing about taking such
| shortcuts,
| the key here is to develop a working prototype as quickly as possible)
| Actually I use a component (by ProtoView) that has both treeview &
| listview.
| Now, I'm presuming I won't be using VB on Linux :-) and I think C++
| would
| take much longer than, say, Java (I know C but not that well and I'm
| thinking
| I could learn and use Java much quicker than C++).
| So, whether Java or some other higher-level-than-C++ language, what
| environment might I try to use?
| If I use something like VisualAge, NetBeans, or FreeBuilder, are there
| "components" (objects) available so that I don't have to spend months
| creating
| a "treeview" control to start from? In the VB world there are countless
| thousands
| of components out there to choose from (of course, VERY few of them are
| worth
| a damn), is there a similar market out there for that Java/Linux world?
| Any helpful info would be greatly appreciated, and again, sorry if this
| starts
| another flamefest for the religious zealots. I don't need to see
| another
| makefile vs. IDE debate :-)
I'd look into the combination of GTK/Glade if I were you. GTK is C-based
(although you can use other languages, that's probably not a concern to
you), and Glade is a GUI builder for GTK. I haven't used Glade much,
although I am about to start using it more in the coming weeks; but I think
it'll do the quick prototyping you need. Hope this helps.
David Bilbey
--
"Instead of a bicycle built for two, what about no kinds of bicycles at
all for anybody, anymore? There, are you happy now?" --Jack Handey
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Klaus Schneider)
Subject: binutils compile error
Date: 28 Jun 1999 17:10:26 GMT
Hi all,
trying to compile and install binutils 2.9.1
the compilation with �make� went ok, but when
�make install� I got a strange error:
ranlib: error in loading shared libraries
: undefined symbol: __register_frame_info
I looked at the things happening and noticed that
the error was produced by the new runlib in
binutils/.libs (although the wrapper script
should set the LD_LIBRARY_PATH) ;
trying to call
binutils/.libs/ranlib manually also failed.
What can I do?
What does produce that error?
Thanks for your help!
Klaus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Abbey)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Another Windows developer looking for a good IDE
Date: 28 Jun 1999 12:35:42 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David L Jarvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| Specifically, I need to display a "treeview" (hierarchical tree
| structure), and a "listview" (row/column grid type structure). In the
| VisualBasic/Windoze world, I would simply drop a "treeview control" on
| a form and be writing code in minutes. Then drop a "listview control"
| on it and do the same. (Please spare me the philosophizing about
| taking such shortcuts, the key here is to develop a working prototype
| as quickly as possible) Actually I use a component (by ProtoView) that
| has both treeview & listview.
|
| Now, I'm presuming I won't be using VB on Linux :-) and I think C++
| would take much longer than, say, Java (I know C but not that well and
| I'm thinking I could learn and use Java much quicker than C++).
|
| So, whether Java or some other higher-level-than-C++ language, what
| environment might I try to use?
You can get what you want under Java pretty quickly.. get a book on
Java 1.1 or 1.2, a book on Sun's Swing library (I recommend O'Reilly's
Swing text), the Linux port of the JDK (from www.blackdown.org), the
latest version of Sun's Swing library from java.sun.com, XEmacs, and
you should be good to go.
You won't have a visual GUI editor, and you'll need to spend a bit of
time getting up to speed on Java, Java's portable layout management,
Java build process, and Swing libraries, but if you do you'll be able
to deploy your software across several kinds of operating systems.
If you already know C++, you might also be able to get good results
from using Qt (www.troll.no), a C++ based GUI library that can be
deployed both to UNIX/X, and to Win32. If you would be interested in
using a more free GUI library that is less portable to Windows and
which is less C++-centric, you might check out GTK (www.gtk.org).
I don't personally have any programming experience with either Qt or
GTK.. all my coding has been in Java for the last few years.
--
===============================================================================
Jonathan Abbey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied Research Laboratories The University of Texas at Austin
Ganymede, a free NIS/DNS management system http://www.arlut.utexas.edu/gash2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug DeJulio)
Subject: Re: You can now use Winmodems in Linux!!!!!!!
Date: 28 Jun 1999 11:00:21 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sudip Sarbajna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am also looking for my PCI modem (so far I know they are all winmodems and
>uses specific drivers to run under windows) to work under Linux (redhat).
There are PCI internal modems that are not winmodems -- that is,
they're full modems with UARTs and AT command sets and everything, and
they work with Linux (and SCO and others). Chase Research makes some
(though they're very expensive).
--
Doug DeJulio | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
HKS, Incorporated | http://www.hks.net/~ddj/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Spam)
Subject: Re: NT kernel guy playing with Linux
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:26:22 GMT
On 26 Jun 1999 19:02:57 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter
Samuelson) wrote:
}[Holden McGroin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
}> Semaphores still aren't good even if you use lots of them. Suppose
}> you have two instances of the same process trying to run on smp.
}> they would be using the same parts of the kernel and eventually
}> hitting the same semaphores, thus hozing the smp benefit to them.
}
}No, most semaphores in the kernel are for kernel-internal things like
}manipulating page tables or process scheduling queues, stuff like
that.
}The ones you'll notice by running two processes of the same
executable
}(*not* two instances of the same process, mind) would mostly have to
do
}with I/O (filesystem code, networking code, etc). There *is* a known
}lack of parallelism in Linux net and fs code, and that is being
worked
}on as we speak. Another major place of contention directly affecting
}user space as you say would be in memory management, and it's a poor
}implementation of malloc() that has to call sbrk() too often anyway.
}
}> > The kernel knows only of tasks, and these can be processes or
}> > threads , the only difference being that threads share the same
}> > virtual address space. The kernel can create processes and it can
}> > control the page table so you can do anything you could do
}> > with threads.
}
}> hmm. rather not be concerned with the page table.
}
}Oh, you don't have to be, don't worry. Just use the pthread API.
}
}> I get the impression that daemons are used alot to provide a
}> controlled thread context to kernel drivers. ie, load daemon.
daemon
}> privately calls into it accompanying driver. driver blocks it on a
}> queue. Then when driver needs to do real work at the request of
other
}> apps, driver can block other apps, wakeup its daemon thread and
don't
}> worry, be happy...
}
}Actually daemons *are* used some, but not because of threading. The
}real reason to use daemons is to do things that are easier to do in
}user space than in kernel space. Writing kernel code is hard.
There's
}no easy way to run the code under a debugger. You can't link to
}arbitrary libraries. (Especially libc. There's an *extremely*
limited
}subset of libc in the kernel.) You have to worry about kernel memory
}use, since it is mostly non-pageable. So any major complexity that
can
}reasonably be pushed out to user space, often is.
}
}In the case of `insmod' (which you allude to above), it is
essentially
}performing the functions of an object linker, resolving symbols and
so
}forth. As such it uses libbfd, the "binary file descriptor" library
}from the GNU binutils, which knows all about object files and those
}kinds of things. Doing this in kernel space -- without a libbfd --
}would have involved a *lot* of wheel-reinvention.
}
}> > There is a significant overhead to fine grain kernel locking and
}> > this is most noticed on single processor systems. In the past
the
}> > Linux kernel was optimised for single processor systems and
}> > currently and in the future it is being given better SMP support
so
}> > it is capable of running well on single and multiple processor
}> > environments.
}> understood. thanx
}
}Actually the overhead goes away if you don't compile for SMP. The
}locking primitives get defined to no-ops by the C preprocessor. So
the
}real overhead is in kernel complexity. But yes, Linux SMP is still
}something of a work-in-progress. As I said, the global filesystem
lock
}is going away soon and the TCP/IP stack locking (made famous by
}Mindcraft III) has already been refined somewhat in the 2.3.x kernel
}series.
}
}--
}Peter Samuelson
}<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
test reply
------------------------------
From: Matthew Carl Schumaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PTHREADS kernel/user level threading?
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:01:44 -0400
I know that when you start up a thread it appears as another process using
top
Matthew Carl Schumaker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
veni, vedi, velcro
I came, I saw, I stuck around
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Dave Erdmann wrote:
> Hi I thinking of writing a threaded server
> on the latest Red Hat 6.0 Linux distribution
> using Pthreads.
>
> I am wondering if the pthreads implementation on
> Linux does any kernel level threading, or both
> kernel and user level threading.
>
> For instance if I have a dual CPU system can my server
> take advantage of both CPUs having two concurrent
> threads in the same process running on both CPUs
> at once?
>
> Does anyone know if this is supported or is there just
> user level threading where the process is shunted onto
> one CPU and does its threading on its own, and can't use
> the multiple CPU's?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dave
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike McDonald)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: 28 Jun 1999 19:25:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mario Klebsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Believe me, I very well am aware of these problmes. But I also know,
> that there are Macintosh User Interface Guidelines, and there is a
> publication from Microsoft, called "The Windows Interface". There is
> nothing like this for UNIX. Well, there is a Motif style guide, and
> an open windows style guide and probably others, but none of them is
> about UNIX or about X11.
>
> This topic is just not covered by X11.
First X and Unix are to separate things. One does not imply the
other. I regularly run X on a none Unix box. Mostly a an X client but
occasionally as an X server.
Second, X isn't suppose to have a "style guide". If you read the
Introduction to "X Window System" by Scheifler, et al. you'd learn about what
X is and IS NOT meant to be. In particular, Under Principles (pg 5), The first
and last principles listed are:
"Do not add new functionality unless an implementor cannot complete a
real application without it."
"Provide mechanism rather than policy. In particular, place user
interface policy in the client's hands."
These two principles argue against adding sound (you can do sound without
adding it to X) and specifying the one true style guide.
>>Apps can only look
>>the same because the person who wrote it decided to do that.
>
> .. and because someone tried to define a standard and wrote it down,
> so programmers can know about it.
You're real problem is not that there isn't one written done for Unix/X11
but that there are too many. A completely different problem. A good question
to ask is why are there so many? One reason is that somone found enough
lacking in the existing onesto dedicate the effort required to design and
implement a different one.
Mike McDonald
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: David L Jarvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Another Windows developer looking for a good IDE
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:15:29 -0400
At the risk of starting another religious war, let me prefix this by
saying
I come from Unix background and yes I love the command line :-)
But some years ago I was forced to get into app development for Windoze
(I should
have retired my keyboard instead).
What I am looking for are recommendations for development environments.
I've spent two days reading every post in the linux.development groups,
so yes
I've seen a lot of product names. But most of them are for C++ and I
don't
feel that would be the best tool for me to use. What I need to do is
develop a
working prototype as quickly as possible.
Specifically, I need to display a "treeview" (hierarchical tree
structure), and a
"listview" (row/column grid type structure).
In the VisualBasic/Windoze world, I would simply drop a "treeview
control"
on a form and be writing code in minutes. Then drop a "listview
control" on it
and do the same. (Please spare me the philosophizing about taking such
shortcuts,
the key here is to develop a working prototype as quickly as possible)
Actually I use a component (by ProtoView) that has both treeview &
listview.
Now, I'm presuming I won't be using VB on Linux :-) and I think C++
would
take much longer than, say, Java (I know C but not that well and I'm
thinking
I could learn and use Java much quicker than C++).
So, whether Java or some other higher-level-than-C++ language, what
environment might I try to use?
If I use something like VisualAge, NetBeans, or FreeBuilder, are there
"components" (objects) available so that I don't have to spend months
creating
a "treeview" control to start from? In the VB world there are countless
thousands
of components out there to choose from (of course, VERY few of them are
worth
a damn), is there a similar market out there for that Java/Linux world?
Any helpful info would be greatly appreciated, and again, sorry if this
starts
another flamefest for the religious zealots. I don't need to see
another
makefile vs. IDE debate :-)
Regards
David L Jarvis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 19:43:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.system Bruce Hoult <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <QGtd3.4830$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:> In comp.os.linux.development.system Nathan Myers
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> :>Bruce Hoult <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> :>
:> :>But what others are saying is "a lot of existing C++ compilers generate
:> :>worse code than a lot of existing C compilers". And they are right too.
:> :>
:> :>Sometimes theory matters. Sometimes it doesn't. The world is not as
:> :>simple as you make it out to be.
:>
:> : Enough generalities. Take for example Egcs. C and C++, same code
:> : generator, same optimizer. The last time you tried g++ was years
:> : and years ago. It's time to look again.
:>
:>
:> Using the latest egcs (from CVS) to compile a C program, with options
:> '-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -O2', the C assembler output is still
:> smaller (in terms of # of instructions, not symbol length) while
:> producing the same results.
:>
:> C++ is still slower and bulkier.
: I don't understand. C compilers don't have rtti and exceptions, so you're
: clearly using a C++ compiler to compile C code. Cool.
C++ is a superset of C so this shouldn't be surprising. :)
I compiled and compared like this:
$ vi simple.c
$ /egcs/bin/gcc -O2 -s simple.c
$ mv simple.s simple.s.gcc
$ mv simple.c simple.cc
$ /egcs/bin/g++ -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -O2 -s simple.cc
$ mv simple.s simple.s.g++
$ diff -u simple.s.*
: Now, which C compiler are you comparing it against to say that "egcs
: -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -O2" is worse than it?
Look at the above, and what I quoted from Nathan Myers:
"[...]Take for example Egcs. C and C++, same code generator,
same optimizer."
My point was that C++ output is still bigger than C, _for the exact same
source code_, using the same code generator and optimizer.
Jeff
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Comeau)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: 28 Jun 1999 16:49:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <7l352f$hmh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers)
writes:
>John E. Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In my opinion, the only thing that C++ has over C is
>>better support for data encapsulation via classes and, possibly,
>>exception handling. Other features such as operator overloading I can
>>do without because of the potential for abuse.
>
>Classes are not a very powerful feature; you can emulate them pretty
>well in C. Exceptions are quite powerful, though of limited use.
>Far more powerful than either are templates.
>
>If you don't know C++ templates, you don't know C++ at all. It is
>templates, for example, that make it possible to write a C++ library
>that does matrix operations as efficiently as specially-optimizing
>Fortran on machines specifically designed to run Fortran well. Unlike
>Fortran, though, C++ templates are not tuned specificially for matrix
>math, so can be used to accomplish similar wonders in any area.
>
>Of course if you don't care about performance none of this matters.
I definitely wholeheartedly agree that templates are quite powerful, etc
(so much so that I'm going to be offering a templates course at
Columbia University in the fall ((Perhaps the very first such univ course
exclusively on templates???)) However, I think it's an overstatement
to say that classes are not a very powerful feature and that they can
be emulated well in C. I'm thinking of inheritance and virtuals
as class features. I don't think they emulate well in C at all.
But even w/o them, and that "C techniques" are rather mechanical
at just the raw class level on some things, I still don't think they
emulate well in C. Why do you want to have to do the mechanics?
- Greg
--
Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
Producers of Comeau C/C++ 4.2.38 -- New Release! We now do Windows too.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
*** WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Comeau)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: 28 Jun 1999 16:05:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 27 Jun 1999 23:17:45 -0400, Greg Comeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>This doesn't follow and so seems flawed. Ok, for whatever reason, you
>>don't like or understand or need (whichever applies) C++. However,
>>with your reasoning, doing the typedef would not be compelling either.
>>So why wouldn't you just use struct and not typedef? For that matter,
>>why not just code in binary?
>
>The original poster said that, among other things, "structs as type
>names....make C++ better than C". I interpreted his statement as
>meaning that, e.g.,
>
> Vector *x;
>
>is better than
>
> struct Vector *x;
>
>I merely pointed out that he can use a `typedef' to achieve this.
Thanks for trying to clarify, but I still find this flawed.
I mean, why would he do that?
Also, I would interpret his statement as:
Vector *x;
is not only better than
struct Vector *x;
but also better than a situation such as:
typedef struct Vector Vector;
Vector *x;
But this latter one is part of your point to the contrary,
which is odd -- as above, why would he do that? (besides C requiring it)
There _are_ compelling reasons to use typedef (and struct)
but the above should not have to be one of them.
If the C++ way is not better (not only does it support the C ways,
but a new way that's overwhelmingly used), then the word better has
no meaning.
- Greg
--
Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
Producers of Comeau C/C++ 4.2.38 -- New Release! We now do Windows too.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
*** WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:09:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.system Nathan Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message ...
:>In comp.os.linux.development.system Nathan Myers
:>
:>: Enough generalities. Take for example Egcs. C and C++, same code
:>: generator, same optimizer. The last time you tried g++ was years
:>: and years ago. It's time to look again.
:>
:>Using the latest egcs (from CVS) to compile a C program, with options
:>'-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -O2', the C assembler output is still
:>smaller (in terms of # of instructions, not symbol length) while
:>producing the same results.
: Unsupported assertion noted (again).
: What source code?
: How _much_ smaller (if any)?
: How _much_ faster (if any)?
: Without proof, this is just more FUD.
You cannot find a random C program and compile it yourself with g++?
Who is FUD'ing now?
A simple program is listed below. I have used different setting per a
suggestion in this thread:
$ cat > c.c
$ cp c.c c.cc
$ /usr/local/egcs/bin/gcc -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -S c.c
$ /usr/local/egcs/bin/g++ -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -S cc.cc
$ diff -u c.s cc.s | wc -l
134
$ /usr/local/egcs/bin/g++ -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-rtti -S cc.cc
$ diff -u c.s cc.s | wc -l
134
$ /usr/local/egcs/bin/g++ -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-exceptions -S cc.cc
$ diff -u c.s cc.s | wc -l
66
$ /usr/local/egcs/bin/g++ -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions
-S cc.cc
$ diff -u c.s cc.s | wc -l
66
The linecount for each diff is 95% new instructions added by the C++ compiler.
Jeff
/**********************************************************************/
#include <stdio.h>
long boing (long foo)
{
if (foo > 1)
return (foo * boing(foo - 1));
return 1;
}
int main()
{
printf("hello world boing %ld\n", boing(42));
}
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Comeau)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: 28 Jun 1999 17:05:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
>
>> Thomas Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > C++ might not be a very elegant language, but it is
>> >fast, at least compared to other OO languages.
>>
>> Its syntax isn't very elegant, but where did that come from?
>> It's fast compared to _any_ language, period. People who say
>> it's slower than (e.g.) C are just spreading FUD.
>
>C++ *is* slower than C.
I suspect there is some knee-jerking going on here.
Certainly C++ is not always fast compared to anything.
But certainly saying it is always slower than C is not the case either.
>not by orders of magnitude or even a factor
>of two, but if you feed code to both C and C++ compilers, the C
>compiler will optimize harder and generally make a better product.
This is a meaningless statement. Certainly the general marketplace
has shown this to be not true.
>this is because C is more mature and that C++ code is potentially more
>complex which causes a more conservative compile.
This sounds to me like you have got your hands on a very good optimizing
C compiler that you are making sweeping conclusions from.
- Greg
--
Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
Producers of Comeau C/C++ 4.2.38 -- New Release! We now do Windows too.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
*** WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
