Originally posted by GreatEmerald
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
John Carmack's Comments On C/C++
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by joe_gunner View PostAnd much of the standard library relies on GC, so what then, roll your own to be sure?
Btw this is a topic about john carmack and c++. How did this turn into a discussion on 'D'? Sometimes I wonder about astroturfing...Last edited by bnolsen; 15 January 2013, 04:46 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sylware View PostThe c++ benefits does not compensate for its technical cost. Then, better stick to C.
I personally would miss exceptions, templates and polymorphism too much.
Comment
-
Originally posted by newwen View PostAs I'm old school (and embedded developer) I still use C. But even with C, my coding rules ban me from using some features of the language. The thing is that C++ has many features that leave a program indecipherable, like operator overloading. Yes, it is a powerful tool, yet it is often misused and makes the code hard to understand.
Being a C programmer, I've always liked Java for it's simplicity. But then again, Java developers tend to abuse OOP paradignms just for the sake of having beautiful object model design. If I had to ask something to Java is unsafe contexts and an easier JNI, just like C# has them.
Anyway, If you write C code, you get a better glimpse of what machine code the compiler may generate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bnolsen View PostPart of the whole "fad" part of 'D'. I should check back into CLAY. From a language perspective that was looking pretty decent. Not just another same old same old object inheritance thing, but an attempt at some orthogonality and simplicity. The biggest strike was missing "const".
Comment
-
Originally posted by dnebdal View PostJust adding a native unsigned 8-bit int type to java would make me happy.
so it's byte + byte is converted to int + int and the result is converted back to byte.
This means you would use a little bit less space but have a more expensive operation, which is probably the reason 'byte' is signed. so byte2int and int2byte is just adding and removing bits from/to one end.
Comment
Comment