09-17-2006, 11:26 PM
C++ programs are either just about the same speed or faster than C programs. Blitz or marzec probably knows more, since they're compiler geeks.
The very first C++ compilers just converted C++ code into C and then fed them through a C compiler. So writing a converter would be a step backwards.
The extra fat in programs is from the extra complexity and/or more detailed data files. If you check the size of the binaries in modern applications, they're actually pretty small.
The heaviest common executable I have is 6 megs - that's probably because it's statically linked with a bunch of other libraries (since it's a media player, that seems a fair assumption).
Personally I don't see the problem - for 99% of projects, space isn't an issue. We should be happy that we're free of those chains, not pining back to the days when we were shackled up.
The very first C++ compilers just converted C++ code into C and then fed them through a C compiler. So writing a converter would be a step backwards.
The extra fat in programs is from the extra complexity and/or more detailed data files. If you check the size of the binaries in modern applications, they're actually pretty small.
Code:
[chris@opium code]$ ls -al /usr/bin | sort -n -k 5 | tail -n 5
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3736852 Sep 9 18:55 Xvfb
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4138112 May 30 13:09 gs
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5354556 Aug 30 22:54 php
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5753196 Jun 27 11:33 mencoder
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6390412 Jun 27 11:33 mplayerThe heaviest common executable I have is 6 megs - that's probably because it's statically linked with a bunch of other libraries (since it's a media player, that seems a fair assumption).
Personally I don't see the problem - for 99% of projects, space isn't an issue. We should be happy that we're free of those chains, not pining back to the days when we were shackled up.
img]http://www.cdsoft.co.uk/misc/shiftlynx.png[/img]