At 07:57 2007-01-25, you wrote: >At 06:36 2007-01-25, Paul Herring wrote: > >On 1/25/07, mr_gees100_peas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > By quirkiness I > > > mean if there is a catch when using it with C++. Lets say as opposed > > > to using streams COUT CIN. > > > >No catches (beyond the usual dangers of type saftey etc.) if using > >stdio instead of iostream. There are caveats attached if using them > >together however. See sync_with_stdio() > >That's one impressively lousy implementation of streams if it takes >up that much more room.
BTW, found this in Bjarne's C++ FAQ: Why is the code generated for the "Hello world" program ten times larger for C++ than for C? It isn't on my machine, and it shouldn't be on yours. I have even seen the C++ version of the "hello world" program smaller than the C version. When I recently (2004) tested using gcc -o2 on a Unix, the two versions (iostreams and stdio) yielded identical sizes. There is no language reason why the one version should be larger than the other. It is all an issue on how the implementor organized the libraries. If one version is significantly larger than the other, report the problem to the implementor of the larger. > >-- > >PJH > > Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"
