Re: [gtk-list] C vs C++ blah blah blah

[Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com>]

On Sat, 14 Jun 1997, Chris Wedgwood wrote:

> Still not as clean as pure C++.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;-)

> gtk is in C. Its not going to be re-written in C++, so why discuss the
> issue any further?
> 
> Also, delete is a reserved word in C++ - so gtk should perhaps be changed to
> reflect this. (ie. not use it).

Actually 0.99.10 was fixed WRT this.

>     This is linux 2.0.30 with all the latest  - gcc version 2.7.2.1.. I'm
>     sure it's the linktime for the C++ version that kills it..
> 
> It will partially, normally C++ programs also requires libg++.so, libm.so
> and libstdc++.so. Linked statically they are almost (if not) the same size
> and the same speed on my machine.
> 
> gcc/g++ produce the same code for the both the C & C++ version of
> hello-word.
> 
> x:~# time hello-c
> hello world
> 
> real    0m0.002s
> user    0m0.000s
> sys     0m0.000s
> x:~# time hello-cc
> hello world
> 
> real    0m0.002s
> user    0m0.000s
> sys     0m0.000s
> x:~#
> 
> P.S. This uses the bash-2.01 time builtin. The *bsd time thingy be default
>      doesn't have enough resolution. Still, these numbers are too small to
>      count for much.

Benchmarking hello world is a really valid test, eh?

Get something like povray, compile it as C code and again as C++ code, and
compare the two. That should be a bit better benchmark.

Why not use Objective C instead of C++ if you want OO? It's much cleaner
and has features that C++ doesn't. It also is supposedly more compatible
with plain C than C++ is.

Hmm, an ObjC binding of gtk, that could be interesting.

GNUstep will be cool if/when it matures.

Blathering,
-- Elliot					http://www.redhat.com/
How do you explain school to a higher intelligence?
                -- Elliot, "E.T."