|
pplshero54 wrote: I keep hearing that c++ is less efficient than c.
the discussion is like "what is the best language ever"... all depends on what you want to do !
and depends also is performance has a critical impact on your work or not.
As C++ has some things to manage upon C, then yes, it could sometimes take some more CPU ticks...
but unless you're doing an OS kernel, i think it is not that important...
TOXCCT >>> GEII power
[toxcct][VisualCalc 2.24][3.0 soon...]
|
|
|
|
|
pplshero54 wrote: I keep hearing that c++ is less efficient than c.
From whom? See here for the start of several related questions.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
This was somewhat true in the early days of C++, when it was basically implemented as a preprocessor that turned C++ code into (sometimes not very good) C code and fed it to a C compiler/linker.
These days, C++ compilers do C++ natively, and have extensive optimization algorithms designed to squeeze the very best out of the code, some optimizations being specific to C++ like (N)RVO.
I would guess a decent C++ compiler can create optimized code that is on par with a decent C compiler. Of course, it all depends on what the code is doing. I would not expect much difference if you took some real-world C code, compiled and optimized it with a straight C compiler and did the same with a C++ compiler suite.
Peace!
-=- James
If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
DeleteFXPFiles & CheckFavorites (Please rate this post!)
|
|
|
|
|
pplshero54 wrote: I keep hearing that c++ is less efficient than c
it all depends on how you write it.
for example, you can mimic much of what C++ does with C structs and function pointers acting like pseudo-objects; you can simulate inheritance and virtual functions and member variables, etc.. and many C programs do exactly that. in fact, nearly every significant C-interfaced library i've seen does it (ex. LibTiff, LibPNG, JpegLib, etc).
so, ask yourself: is that efficient ? because, that's a lot like what's going on behind the scenes with C++.
Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
|
|
|
|
|
My own experience is yes, VC++ creates as good, and in many cases better, compiled code compared to the equivalent C code.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine.
- P.J. O'Rourke
|
|
|
|
|
pplshero54 wrote: I keep hearing that c++ is less efficient than c.
About 99,9% of the time this is the wrong question.
The Question is if you solve your problem faster with C, C++, Java or C#.
Coding time is very expensive.
This is what counts, not some split seconds the user saves while opening a window or writing a file.
That said, there are the rest 0,01% of cases - those that really need optimization.
Here, a better algorithm tends to speed things up more than just a switch in coding language.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
-- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
I am programming a 3d game that is very time critical
pplshero54 gives his most thanks
|
|
|
|
|
pplshero54 wrote: I am programming a 3d game that is very time critical
I am positivly sure that only certain parts of it are really time critical. 3D graphics and physics engine, for example.
But large parts of it can be made in almost any language.
Refer to the port of Quake to DotNet. Or just remember that scenery and artificial intelligence are often coded in a more or less proprietary scripting Language.
So - profile your code and see which parts are the real bottlenecks.
Then optimize these and their surroundings.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
-- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
I've got a popup dialog, which pops up near the mouse click. As the mouse can be clicked near the edge of a screen, it could fall outside the visible area. I could use GetSysParams (CX / CY_SCREEN), but I'm trying to be good and multimonitor aware.
In my ramblings, I'm sure I've come across a function along the lines of:
BOOL AdjustRectangleToMakeItBeOnAScreen (RECT *rc, UINT fFlags);
in the past, but I can't find it...
I thought it was one of the shell's helper functions, but it doesn't appear to be their either.
Any clues?
Iain.
|
|
|
|
|
Dunno about that function you mention, but GetSystemMetrics(...) is still your friend here...
Look up the SM_CMONITORS, SM_XVIRTUALSCREEN and SM_YVIRTUALSCREEN values for more information.
Peace!
-=- James
If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
DeleteFXPFiles & CheckFavorites (Please rate this post!)
|
|
|
|
|
I found a couple of routines, GetNearestMonitor, and GetMonitorInfo (from memory), and rolled my own function in the end.
I might even post it!
Iain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks - I'll have to try that on my popup dialog. If it works, its a very neat solution
|
|
|
|
|
Just one point, it doesn't ensure dialogs are not split across multiple monitors. You might like to add that feature - it's annoying when they are... 
Ryan "Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
|
|
|
|
|
Well caught - I've just tested that it works as advertised, but I'll have to go with my brute force approach. It will commonly appear near the edge of the screen, so the risk of being split is quite high.
Thanks for the heads up Ryan!
Iain.
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome. I've been bitten by the same thing
Ryan "Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between 'appear' on nearest monitor and FIT on nearest monitor...
People that start writing code immediately are programmers (or hackers), people that ask questions first are Software Engineers - Graham Shanks
|
|
|
|
|
Blake Miller wrote: The difference between 'appear' on nearest monitor and FIT on nearest monitor...
Exactly 
Ryan "Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
|
|
|
|
|
How an exe should automatically be deleted after completing its execution? Thank you.
Nice talking to you. 
If you judge people, you have no time to love them. -- Mother Teresa
|
|
|
|
|
you mean you want to make an exe that executes and deletes itself then ?
simply make him delete the file... there's no problem when the program is launched in memory...
TOXCCT >>> GEII power
[toxcct][VisualCalc 2.24][3.0 soon...]
|
|
|
|
|
Here I like to delete automatically.
Not to delete manually.
Nice talking to you.
If you judge people, you have no time to love them. -- Mother Teresa
|
|
|
|
|
|
See here.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Am working on VC 6.0, though have a small prob...
Suppose the declaration s like
classA[] obj = new classA[]{};
now when i try to access
int k = 0;
obj[k] = numeral;
it says array index out of bounds, tat means it needs a max size right?
so how do i define a max no of elements in the array size?
|
|
|
|
|
What about:
classA *obj = new ClassA[some_number];
obj[0] = numeral;
obj[1] = numeral;
...
obj[some_number-1] = numeral;
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
