Leon Widdershoven wrote:
>
> If I might add (being somewhat experienced in C++):
>
> C++ is an exteremely 'complicated' if you need efficiency. Whereas
> C has a reasonably constant number of assemby instructions per
> C instruction (I think it averages around 5), C++ has a greatly
> varying number of assembler statements per C++ statement, it may
> be more than 500! (If you consider for instance an 'elegant'
> construction
I agree completely with all of this. I also hate the implicit
member usage scoping. If you want to use a field or member function,
you should have to explicitly use the entire hierachy right from
the this-> pointer. The words 'implicit', 'elegant', 'suggested',
and other ambiguities do NOT belong in a spec for a real-world
product. All you end up with are bug potentials, opacity, obscurity,
incompatibilities, etc.
Use of C++ code as a callback from C - yep there's lots of C out there,
implementation of the this-> pointer, #ifdef nastiness to get rid of the
this pointer, implementation dependence of the this pointer passing between
compilers... just some more of my pet peaves about the langauge.
There are other dimensions of C++ that are just plain broken,
due to fsck-ups in the spec. I don't even want to revisit them
in my mind. Wish I had written them up into a doc first, but my urge
to throw my notes into the garbarge was too great and too satisfying...
-Kevin
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Kevin Lawton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MandrakeSoft, Inc. Plex86 developer
http://www.linux-mandrake.com/ http://www.plex86.org/
"If you have a $10 head, buy a $10 helmet." -old Bell Helmet commercial
