On Apr 6, 7:55=A0am, "copx" <c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Richard Heathfield" <r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:NKO=
dnfOFf_8s8WXanZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > copx said:
> >> Are their any counter-arguments against Stroustroups claim?
>
> > My favourite example is a 450-line C++ program I was shown, about
eight
> > years ago, which had taken four man-years to write and took about 10
> > minutes to process a fairly trivial amount of data. I rewrote it from
sp=
ec
> > (because I saw no point in rewriting it from the code) in a single
day, =
in
> > C. My version took considerably less than a second to process the same
> > amount of data. There is more to efficiency than mere language choice.
>
> Of course, a bad programmer will write worse code in any language
compared=
> to a good programmer. However, the question here is - assuming
programmers=
> of equal skill - who would produce more efficient code if one used C and
t=
he
> other used C++. So far the answer seems to be the C++ guy would win
Assuming two programmers of equal skill, on the whole the one writing
in C will write far nicer code than the one in C++ (nicer in terms of
ease of readibility, maintainability, and lack of bugs). And he will
write it quicker.
Assuming the resulting C++ program actually works as intended, it will
run at pretty much the same speed as the C one.
Assumming a team of C++ programmers, the useful subset of the bloated
nightmare of C++ that they know in common is called C.
C++ is a virus. There will come a day when it is wiped from the Earth.
|
