Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:50:59 +0400 From: DoubleF <doublef@tele-kom.ru> To: Dan MacMillan <flowers@users.sourceforge.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Beginning C++ in FreeBSD Message-ID: <20040418045059.GA1320@Shark.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <FGEIJLCPFDNMGDOKNBABIEMPCJAA.flowers@users.sourceforge.net> References: <200404171050.29467.dgw@liwest.at> <FGEIJLCPFDNMGDOKNBABIEMPCJAA.flowers@users.sourceforge.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] [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. > > I challenge you to defend this claim with a specific example. > 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> > > How does one properly do an assembly language program for the x86 > instruction set (for example) so that it will run on a StrongARM? > One writes it in C instead:)... -- DoubleF I'm written in C++. CC me! [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAggkywo7hT/9lVdwRArbSAJ9wSpqQqN50TETGH99OAYno0GgDJQCdEnSh t7QM/N9mIZqLrF1/gCHfpmg= =qH7F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040418045059.GA1320>