--------------enig5C97633BEC5EEA52E7F1E77B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Henry Maddocks wrote:
>>
>> C++'s days are numbered unless you are doing seriously performance
>> critical stuff (visualisation, some games, etc). Java is an
>> improvement but then Ruby is at another level.
> How does C++ deliver "seriously performance critical" applications where
> C can't? Are the optimizers/code generators better for C++ than they are
> for C? I would think a pure C code would have *better* performance,
> simply because the language is simpler and easier to optimize.
> 

And conversely, what's the problem with using C++ instead of C for
performance-critical Ruby extensions or any "fast code"? It's not THAT
much overhead compared to pure C, and I'd bet money on that it'll be
less than the cost of interpreter callouts (in doing data structure
marshalling or manipulating Ruby objects as opposed to not having to for
a straight C++ app) is. The heaps and piles (I know, I can get cream for
that) of inconsistency inside C would make that overhead worth it for
me, as well as the fact that doing robust code is horrible busywork.

Also, for gaming, .NET seems to be gaining hold recently, if the
(sometimes amusingly tangled) dependencies new stuff has on it are a
reliable hint, although I can't tell which of the C# syntax flavours it
is that's being used, obviously.

David Vallner


--------------enig5C97633BEC5EEA52E7F1E77B
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFFY0KHy6MhrS8astoRAg1wAJ9zXE7eefk72JD7jCpodd7t/fKoSgCcD+Cs
XSbEJFRrajNDSSijASQMFo0EG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig5C97633BEC5EEA52E7F1E77B--