I know I'll get flamed/modded down for this, but it needs to be said: there is no reason for new apps to be written in C. C++ can do everything that C can do, just as efficiently; it's easier to read, which means a code review is more effective; language features and the STL reduce the need for explicit dynamic memory allocation, which is a source of bugs in C; the language is a better match than C to modern, object-oriented methods of analysis and design; - I could go on, but shouldn't need to.
Unfortunatly g++ is not a good c++ compiler so all the Unix nerds look at the size of the compiled program and time to execute and assume the problem is with C++ itself and then continue to work in C.
There is alot of anti c++ sentiment in the unix community because of that.
Measure the execution time of a typical C++ program as compiled into an executable. It appears that Billly Gates and qbwiz claim that other vendors' proprietary C++ compilers have a much bigger speed gain over g++ than their C compilers have over gcc.
Yet another library for an obsolete language (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Yet another library for an obsolete language (Score:5, Informative)
There is alot of anti c++ sentiment in the unix community because of that.
Re:Yet another library for an obsolete language (Score:2)
I disagree; I think the current version is a fine C++ compiler. What's wrong with it?
Re:Yet another library for an obsolete language (Score:1)
Measure the execution time of a typical C++ program as compiled into an executable. It appears that Billly Gates and qbwiz claim that other vendors' proprietary C++ compilers have a much bigger speed gain over g++ than their C compilers have over gcc.
Re:Yet another library for an obsolete language (Score:2)
MS VC++ is a good one and so is watcom C++ and Borland.
None are ported to Unix.
IF you look at the resulted assembly code you will see many many unoptimized code that MS VC++ and Borland would optimize by default.