From: Phil Tomson <rubyfan@...>
Date: 2006-11-30T05:52:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby vs Java vs c++

On 11/25/06, Henry Maddocks <henryj@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> On 21/11/2006, at 9:28 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>
> > Henry Maddocks wrote:
> >>
> >> C++'s days are numbered unless you are doing seriously performance
> >> critical stuff (visualisation, some games, etc). Java is an
> >> improvement but then Ruby is at another level.
> > How does C++ deliver "seriously performance critical" applications
> > where C can't?
>
> It doesn't and I never said it did.
>
> > I would think a pure C code would have *better* performance, simply
> > because the language is simpler and easier to optimize.
>
> I am sure you are correct, but it just seems that when writing large
> fast applications people tend to choose c++ rather than c these days.
> My point was that when writing large slow programs they seem to be
> preferring something else. C++ is going 'niche' so why bother going
> through the grief of learning it.
>

In the past I've sometimes not been too fond of C++.  However after
working a recent job where we used the Boost libs extensively I got to
liking C++ again.  The next C++ standard will contain several of the
Boost libs - that'll be nice.  Also, take a look at the book 'Template
Metaprogramming', it's amazing what they're able to do with templates
(functional-style pattern matching, for example).  And template-based
polymorphism is much faster than the traditional use of inheritance
and virtual methods.

I don't think C++ is going away anytime soon.

Phil