Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So if c++ isn't all that good it's ISO fault not ANSI? Why is this
so important to you.
It isn't. Please try reading what I write. You might want to read up
on C and C++ as well, and come back when you know a little bit more.
He is Danish. Murray Hill,
On Sunday 23 Apr 2006 02:03, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
On Saturday 22 April 2006 17:11, Dan Strick wrote:
On Thursday 20 Apr 2006 22:58, Benjamin Lutz wrote: (this line corrected)
The example above is not exactly a realworld example. Even if you stick
to plain C, a repeated putchar(' ') is
I think this points out another issues with performance. That some times
the OS and the compilers implementation
have more effect then the language. I have hard that argued to use
native compiles on OSs like SUN and
HP over GNU. The idea that the computer manufacture can implement the
compile
On Friday 21 Apr 2006 09:20, Don Dugger wrote:
The example above is not exactly a realworld example. Even if you stick
to plain C, a repeated putchar(' ') is 1-2 orders of magnitude slower
than aggregating those characters and write()'ing them every few dozen
chars.
This might seem
Not that it matters a great deal but I didn't write that.
Don ;^)
Dan Strick wrote:
On Friday 21 Apr 2006 09:20, Don Dugger wrote:
The example above is not exactly a realworld example. Even if you stick
to plain C, a repeated putchar(' ') is 1-2 orders of magnitude slower
than
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact is that all your c code will compile in c++
That is wrong. To name just one example, C++ is much stricter about
type casts than C is.
and the c++ compiler may optimize better then the c compiler.
I doubt it. It is the exact same compiler with
Now that that's cleared up :-D
I too do not think much of iostream, not sure I agree about strings.
But streams have been around a lot longer then c++. I first encountered
them in AIX protocol stacks. Didn't like 'em then either. Although the
idea of pushing functional units down a pipe does
David Cuthbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C++ and C are languages that are defined by ANSI
No they're not. It may surprise you to learn that there is a whole
world outside the USA which does not care one
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But streams have been around a lot longer then c++. I first encountered
them in AIX protocol stacks. Didn't like 'em then either.
SysV streams and C++ I/O streams are completely unrelated (except that
they both
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact is that all your c code will compile in c++
That is wrong. To name just one example, C++ is much stricter
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact is that all your c code will compile in c++
That is wrong. To name
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
// comments are neither better nor worse than /* */ comments, and
they have been available in C for seven years now.
That's pure opinion and one that I haven't head.
The availability of // comments in C99,
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
// comments are neither better nor worse than /* */ comments, and
they have been available in C for seven years now.
That's pure opinion and one that I haven't head.
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact is that all your
Am I missing something here? What's the difference between test_iostream.cpp
and test_string.cpp?
Don 8)
Benjamin Lutz wrote:
On Saturday 22 April 2006 17:11, Dan Strick wrote:
On Friday 21 Apr 2006 09:20, Don Dugger wrote:
The example above is not exactly a realworld example. Even
On Sunday 23 April 2006 02:30, Don Dugger wrote:
Am I missing something here? What's the difference between
test_iostream.cpp and test_string.cpp?
Oh. Sorry about that. Here's the proper test_string.cpp:
test_string.cpp
#include iostream
#include string
using namespace std;
int main(int
The fact is that all your c code will compile in c++ and
the c++ compiler may optimize better then the c compiler.
When you use things like iostreams and string you get a
lot of code that does a lot more then what you may need at time
however it may save you a lot of time in the future when you
To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Cc: Benjamin Lutz
Subject: Re: Why is not more FreeBSD software written in C++?
On Sunday 16 April 2006 10:50, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
Why did I even ask the question? I perceive correctness as a big problem
when
programming in C. It is difficult to know for sure that a C
Benjamin Lutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something occurred to me just now. I've been looking at the summer of
code page, where I noticed the Rewrite cvsup in C entry. When Perl
was removed from the FreeBSD base, the general notion was to rewrite
any Perl scripts in sh or C.
Or awk. In
On 4/17/06, Erich Dollansky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
James Bailie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Efficiency is of prime importance in systems programming. The
only language in which one can write more efficient programs than
in C, is assembler, but it's not
On Monday 17 April 2006 16:47, John Baldwin wrote:
To be honest, if you want a safer language, I'd prefer going from C to
C# or Java. C++'s syntax is, quite frankly, clunky in several places.
I perceive the syntax of C++, C# and Java to be very similar. The differences
are minor. What about
James Bailie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Efficiency is of prime importance in systems programming. The
only language in which one can write more efficient programs than
in C, is assembler, but it's not portable.
This is a myth. I'm surprised to see it a Lisp programmer perpetuate
it.
DES
--
Thanks for your comments all that replied.
So to summarize, it seems there are really no technical reasons to not use C++
for base system apps in FreeBSD. A quick look at /usr/src reveals a number of
programs that do actually use C++: devd, gperf, groff and OpenSSL. The
reasons seem to be
Hi,
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
James Bailie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Efficiency is of prime importance in systems programming. The
only language in which one can write more efficient programs than
in C, is assembler, but it's not portable.
This is a myth. I'm surprised to see it a Lisp
Something occurred to me just now. I've been looking at the summer of code
page, where I noticed the Rewrite cvsup in C entry. When Perl was removed
from the FreeBSD base, the general notion was to rewrite any Perl scripts in
sh or C.
Why is it that C++ is not used for our programs? The C++
Benjamin Lutz wrote:
Something occurred to me just now. I've been looking at the summer of code
page, where I noticed the Rewrite cvsup in C entry. When Perl was removed
from the FreeBSD base, the general notion was to rewrite any Perl scripts in
sh or C.
Why is it that C++ is not used for
Benjamin Lutz wrote:
Why is it that C++ is not used for our programs? The C++
compiler is in the base and built by default, and the OOP
paradigm is a nice one, that many programmers, especially the
younger ones (like me :) ) are probably more familiar with than
the tricks and techniques
Le Sam 15 avr 06 à 23:37:26 +0200, Daniel O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
écrivait :
A not insignificant reason (IMO) is that C++ is much slower to compile..
Also, gcc didn't use to be (ie when FreeBSD was started) a good C++ compiler.
And also /usr/lib/libstdc++* can be removed on small systems.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:13:29 +0200
Benjamin Lutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something occurred to me just now. I've been looking at the summer of code
page, where I noticed the Rewrite cvsup in C entry. When Perl was removed
from the FreeBSD base, the general notion was to rewrite any Perl
29 matches
Mail list logo
