nanogui: State of the nanogui union?
Subject:
Re: State of the nanogui union?
From:
"Bradley D. LaRonde" ####@####.####
Date:
29 Sep 1999 13:30:08 -0000
Message-Id: <00fe01bf0a7d$c3403ce0$b8119526@ltc.com>
I guess I didn't duck low enough. :-)
I hear you and Alan.
If only we could use C++... maybe it's just a dream... no... I can't believe
it... why would C++ be prohibitively costly... I can't see any good
reason... what's in that C++ library anyway... isn't C++ a language, not a
runtime... can't it just use the C runtime... can't it get by without it's
own library...
Thing is, I plan on having C++ and STL on my platform anyway, so the above
is kinda moot. But still the questions linger and beg answers.
Regards,
Brad
----- Original Message -----
From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
To: Bradley D. LaRonde ####@####.####
Cc: ####@####.####
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: State of the nanogui union?
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:37:05 -0400 you wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
> >To: Bradley D. LaRonde ####@####.####
> >Cc: ####@####.####
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 8:33 AM
> >Subject: Re: State of the nanogui union?
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:15:41 -0400 you wrote:
> >> >Everyone one: please brace yourselves for this next question. :-)
> >> >
> >> >How about C++ instead of macro hackery?
> >>
> >> I thought about it, but decided against it for since reasons. For our
> >> box it isn't that critical, since we'll have the C++ libraries on it
> >> anyways, but for PDA's etc., where including a C++ library might
consume
> >> almost all of the available memory, whereas with C you could get away
> >> with only a very stripped C library, C++ is a nuisance.
> >
> >So... strip the C++ library. I'm not saying STL, I'm saying classes.
>
> Doesn't help.... You'll still have the C library around, so going C++
> means that you'll add yet another (quite big) library too, as opposed to
> being able to get by with just a C library, maybe even with quite a bit
> of functionality taken out.
>
> Also, many embedded platforms and PDAs doesn't have a proper C++ library,
> or even C++ compilers that can generate code suitable for them.
>
> STL wasn't in my mind at all...
>
> >> Actually, I work quite a bit with C++, but just not for size critical
> >stuff.
> >
> >Isn't that just a myth?
>
> Not in my experience. I've several times rewritten C++ applications that
> have been carefully optimized for performance in pure C and reduced them
> to as littles as 20% of the original, with 50% being typical.
>
> One important note here: This is of course C++ applications which
> actually are C++, not just C compiled with a C++ compiler - if you don't
> use classes or functions from the C++ library size shouldn't be an issue
> any longer. But why use C++ then?
>
> It's also with egcs - I don't know if the numbers would be equivalent
> with other complers.
>
> In most cases with C++ apps that aren't carefully optimized, the numbers
> can be even more dramatic... Few C++ programmers seem to realize how to
> use the string class efficiently, for instance - I've seen programs where
> more than 50% of the time was spent concatenating and copying strings
> because they didn't realize how string expressions were compiled.
>
> Regards,
> Vidar
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
>
