> Mi Sep 09 2009 18:14:29 EDT von LoanShark @ Uncensored > > >>faster with all the above changes. So, no, we're not leaving it to the
> >>compiler or some bytecode intepreter to do some vodoo magic beyound >>ourcontrol, we do it ourself. >> > >This is a nonsense statement. You just stated that you're using function >pointers all over the place. That's not "doing it ourself", that's "not >doing it at all", in terms of optimization. As for static constructors.. >it's really unfortunate that the C++ ABI is still not portable enough to do >static ctors/dtors as nicely as developers want it.. but the support is >there. The only real problems I'm aware of are on Mac OS X and just apply to >shared libraries... which shouldn't be a problem for you guys. (But it's >been a while since I've looked at this area of C++ as I mainly develop in >superior languages. ;) > > > > > I don't think there's a good reason to call c inferior. One won't reach the code density of Ruby or Python, or the ability to generate most of your code like in java, but in most cases theres a descent chance to get a faster result using C then with any of the above; while it might take you a little longer.
