To quote Mark Zealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
# personally I loath C++. it's bloated, slow, etc as people have said
# before. properly coded C will *always* beat the hell out of C++, even
if
# it does take a little bit more code
Just wanted to throw my two cents in here.
Properly written assembly will *always* beat the hell out of C. And C++.
But that's not the point, is it?
It's a tradeoff. Ease of maintaining, and ease of writing, versus speed
of execution. When someone gets too ambitious, and sacrfices everything
in favour of speed of execution, they often loose in the long not. Not
because the language is slow - but because after a certain point, they
are completely incapable of writing proper code in that language, for
that project.
In the C vs. C++ argument, talking about speed of execution alone is
useless. A few thing have to addressed:
1) Skill of original programmer. All else being equal, it's easier to
write "proper" code in C++.
2) Skill of maintainers. If your project is going to be actively
maintained for 20 years, be sure that the language you write in will
last that long. Otherwise you'll be shelling out big bucks for
specialized programmers. C has been around a real long time, and it's
likely to stay. However, C++ is also being taught everywhere these days,
so I doubt it'll go away too soon.
3) Need for execution speed.
The fact is, it all comes down to the programmers. Someone writing in
the programming language with the fastest known executable binaries, yet
who doesn't know what they're doing, isn't going to write fast code.
However, someone who does know how to use those lower-level languages
will be held back by a language that is significantly high-level(like
C++). It's a tradeoff. Clean and simple.
Since Kevin is the current maintainer(and will likely be for quite a
while), and I gather that he's proficient enough in C to really use it,
I think the choice is obvious.
Dave
