From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr 17 21:51:12 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB3316A4CE
	for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.tele-kom.ru (mx.tele-kom.ru [213.80.148.6])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2269F43D1F
	for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from doublef@tele-kom.ru)
Received: (qmail 83852 invoked by uid 555); 18 Apr 2004 08:51:09 +0400
Received: from shark (213.80.149.130)
	by t-k.ru with TeleMail/2 id 1082263868-83842
	for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Sun, 18 Apr 08:51:08 2004 +0400 (MSD)
Received: by shark (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id C0A5EBD; Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:51:00 +0400 (MSD)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:50:59 +0400
From: DoubleF <doublef@tele-kom.ru>
To: Dan MacMillan <flowers@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <20040418045059.GA1320@Shark.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To: DoubleF <doublef@tele-kom.ru>,
	Dan MacMillan <flowers@users.sourceforge.net>,
	Daniela <dgw@liwest.at>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
References: <200404171050.29467.dgw@liwest.at>
	<FGEIJLCPFDNMGDOKNBABIEMPCJAA.flowers@users.sourceforge.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <FGEIJLCPFDNMGDOKNBABIEMPCJAA.flowers@users.sourceforge.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD Shark.localdomain 4.8-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE
cc: Daniela <dgw@liwest.at>
cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Beginning C++ in FreeBSD
X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Non technical items related to the community
	<freebsd-chat.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 04:51:12 -0000


--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[Moved to chat@]

On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 09:30:24AM -0600,
 Dan MacMillan probably wrote:
> From: Daniela
> Sent: April 17, 2004 04:50
> >
> > OO languages can be optimized differently than non-OO languages, and
> > when you translate one language into another, this advantage gets lost.
>=20
> I challenge you to defend this claim with a specific example.
>=20

Let me leave this one to Daniela and defeat a more general claim, that
C++ is not just C:

The `canonical' (portable; standard-compatible) way to get something
done either before or after main() is called, when main() has no
awareness of the need to do it, is:

a) in C++: creation of a static object, whose ctr/dtr contain the code
to be executed before/after main;

b) in C: <your answer here>

>=20
> How does one properly do an assembly language program for the x86
> instruction set (for example) so that it will run on a StrongARM?
>=20

One writes it in C instead:)...

--=20
DoubleF
I'm written in C++. CC me!

--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAggkywo7hT/9lVdwRArbSAJ9wSpqQqN50TETGH99OAYno0GgDJQCdEnSh
t7QM/N9mIZqLrF1/gCHfpmg=
=qH7F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT--