[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: C++

From: Tom Bachmann
Subject: Re: C++
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:51:49 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20090103)

Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Tom Bachmann <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:

    I strongly side with bas here. Even if you hate so many things about
    C++ (which I'm not going to argue about), the syntactic sugar for
    non-fancy OOP (i.e. class and method structure, single inheritance)
    is a sufficient reason to use C++ IMHO.

That is certainly a credible argument for application code. For microkernel code, I can only tell you that we downgraded from C++ back to C in Coyotos, and that doing so simultaneously reduced complexity and increased performance.

That's interesting to hear. Any specific reasons? (When looking at the pistachio source every now and then, I think I can somewhat imagine why.)

For application code, the hazard is that all implementations of abstraction involve indirection, indirection is slow, and all OO languages have as a primary objective the seduction of young programmers into an abiding love of gratuitous abstraction. And they succeed!

Oh dear, I'm busted. Guess what language I learned first *g*. (Yes, it is C++, and yes, I subscribe to the "abstract whenever it makes your code look nicer" paradigm. But I think I also know when and how to break, or to omit in the first place, abstractions for performance.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]