In article <9le7c5f1l...@mid.individual.net>, Neil Cerutti <ne...@norwich.edu> wrote:
> On 2011-12-20, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > >> Oops. I should have mentioned this is for embedded systems > >> programming so templates in general (and STL in particular) > >> are probably off the table. > > > > Templates are how C++ does generics and I'd expect them to > > appear in be used in embedded programming as well as elsewhere. > > They can bloat up the code if you're not careful (if function f > > has several parameters, you can end up with a separate, > > specialized copy of f for every combination of types that f is > > called with in the program), but in the typical monomorphic > > situation they don't add any overhead. I'm not sure about the > > situation with STL. Anyway, templates aren't terribly hard to > > understand. > > Moreover, if you don't plan to take advantage of templates or > inheritance, then you could as well write C++ compatible C and be > pretty happy with the results. Well, C++ still gives you constructors, destructors, and the ability to write class-specific operators. But, you'd be missing one of C++'s biggest selling points; safe containers. Even if you never explore anything in STL beyond std:string and std:vector, you will have saved yourself a world of buffer overflow pain. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
