or least surprising

your code is not simple

simple =/= easy

your code is not simple

Yes, if you learn C++ as C with Classes

simple =/= easy

simple to read means simple to parse

simple to read means simple to parse

completely false

if it is simple to parse it is also simple to optimize

completely false

name one instance this is false

simple to read means simple to parse

look at gerlang 3.0

name one instance this is false

look at gerlang 3.0

look at gerlang 3.0

from a C++ point of view

TCL_new(8) this typical code from the TCL interpreter is a good example

from a C++ point of view

Still nope

name one instance this is false

done

besides, easy to parse != good

Still nope

i want an instance of this from C++ point of view because a big issue here is that these compilers do not have good optimization techniques

i want an instance of this from C++ point of view because a big issue here is that these compilers do not have good optimization techniques

compiler independent

any compiler will do stuff differently

i want an instance of this from C++ point of view because a big issue here is that these compilers do not have good optimization techniques

C++ has compile time evaluation of arbitrary code, unlike C

C++ has compile time evaluation of arbitrary code, unlike C

^

Why nobody suggested it? No C# guys over here? void Write(const std::string& str) { std::cout << str; } void WriteLine(const std::string& str) { std::cout << str << "\n"; }

C++ has compile time evaluation of arbitrary code, unlike C

C does it is called definitions and macros

however the thing is the thing you are evaluating is literally a const string

C does it is called definitions and macros

C++ has those, but more importantly compile time evaluation, real one

however the thing is the thing you are evaluating is literally a const string

it is not a const, it is a constexpr

C does it is called definitions and macros

"Sorry we only sell right foot shoes, but i'm sure that you can cut your left foot in shape to fit into our shoe"

it is easier and simpler from both perspectives to just USE THAT

C++ has those, but more importantly compile time evaluation, real one

these are harder for the compiler as they have to interpret that code

these are harder for the compiler as they have to interpret that code

Making it run easier on TONS of machines

these are harder for the compiler as they have to interpret that code

no, because ways to interpret that code do not imply guesswork of what can be done

So, guys... is C++ faster than C if we didn't use things like exceptions a lot?

So, guys... is C++ faster than C if we didn't use things like exceptions a lot?

On average, yes

btw: exceptions are good

no

interpreting code is harder then parsing and adding a single AST entry

there are equally fast

So, guys... is C++ faster than C if we didn't use things like exceptions a lot?

remove exceptions and virtual inheritance and C++ beats C any day

in runtime

no, because ways to interpret that code do not imply guesswork of what can be done

however this still takes time to interpret that code

no

C++ encourages a faster programming, so I count that as a yes

there are equally fast

In theory yes

however this still takes time to interpret that code

Time on compile time, not at runtime

C++ encourages a faster programming, so I count that as a yes

where?

Time on compile time, not at runtime

BUT IT IS HARDER FOR THE COMPILER

Time on compile time, not at runtime

runtime happens many times, runtime once

BUT IT IS HARDER FOR THE COMPILER

LEAVE YOUR JOB AND GO TO UNI

where?

std::string::size() <-> strlen

which is why the simplest solution static const nl= '\n'; is better

std::string::size() <-> strlen

that's no fair comparison

you can build a struct as well

from BOTH PERSPECTIVES

that's no fair comparison

You can, but it's not encouraged by the mindset

BUT IT IS HARDER FOR THE COMPILER

man, go back to school or i don't know, you are in the tenth decile of C and C++ developers, you should just go back study CS

LEAVE YOUR JOB AND GO TO UNI

i actually get over 90% in most uni courses and it is one of the top 10 ones in my province here

BUT IT IS HARDER FOR THE COMPILER

Compiler doesn't mind doing hard work :D

C++ is better option

which is why the simplest solution static const nl= '\n'; is better

it is not versatile at all

i actually get over 90% in most uni courses and it is one of the top 10 ones in my province here

Uni isn't what it used to be *sigh*

Compiler doesn't mind doing hard work :D

IT TAKES LONGER TO COMPILE

You can, but it's not encouraged by the mindset

that's not even the same problem. Look at the definition of strlen and std::string::size()

it is not versatile at all

it is more then enough

Compiler doesn't mind doing hard work :D

Exactly, moreover when it is well specified work

that's not even the same problem. Look at the definition of strlen and std::string::size()

I know their O's

simple is better here

but okay

I get your point

but in practice, you will tend to write faster code in C++

IT TAKES LONGER TO COMPILE

If compilation time matter to you, you belong in a school

If compilation time matter to you, you belong in a school

@OxFFFFFFFF you belong in a school

If compilation time matter to you, you belong in a school

indeed

If compilation time matter to you, you belong in a school

have you never had projects where the compilation reached over 10 minutes?

because i have

but in practice, you will tend to write faster code in C++

no, by looking at your code of course not. You would never memcpy an array. you copy a vector

because i have

what a crackpot are you?

simple is better here

your "simple" imply eventual type convertions between locale faucets

opencv literally takes 30 minutes minimum

Which is why i name it "easy"

PCL is a shitshow

when it comes to compile time

we literally would leave that compiling over night