On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:45:09PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 12:27:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > C++ may be OO, but it's not very good OO....and it tends to compile > > into code which is both bloated and slow. > > > > dpkg is already far too slow on old hardware...hell, it's too slow > > on a P200 with 200MB of RAM, now that the status and available files > > have over 3300 packages detailed in them. > > Yeah, it's slow, and it's written in C. > > And you want to cinvince me by your un-emotional argumentation that it > will be even slower in C++? > > Strange. Last time I took a look at Stroustrups language it seemed > that it would be carefully designed to not enforce too much overhead > on language features, and no overhead on language features not > used. Stroustrups book goes into detail, and always mentions which > run time overhead you have to expect when you use a certain language > feature. Most features are only one function call away.
in theory, theory and practice are the same. in practise, they're different. i've always favoured practical considerations over nice theories. In practice, C++ programs are larger and slower than they ought to be. craig -- craig sanders