From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 22 17:44:00 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 B1CE216A405 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:44:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dugger@hotlz.com) Received: from www.hotlz.com (freedom.hotlz.com [209.20.218.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C686D43D68 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:43:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dugger@hotlz.com) Received: from [172.27.240.45] (henry.local.hotlz.com [172.27.240.45]) by www.hotlz.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k3MHhmIx024685; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:43:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dugger@hotlz.com) Message-ID: <444A6B54.1030902@hotlz.com> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:43:48 -0700 From: Don Dugger User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org References: <44490663.3040506@hotlz.com> <86d5f9pno8.fsf@xps.des.no> In-Reply-To: <86d5f9pno8.fsf@xps.des.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= Subject: Re: Why is not more FreeBSD software written in C++? X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:44:01 -0000 Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >Don Dugger writes: > > >>The fact is that all your c code will compile in c++ >> >> > >That is wrong. To name just one example, C++ is much stricter about >type casts than C is. > > I mean the constructs. Casting will not change the functionality or shouldn't. > > >>and the c++ compiler may optimize better then the c compiler. >> >> > >I doubt it. It is the exact same compiler with the exact same >optimizer and the exact same code generator. The only difference >between gcc and g++ is the parser. > > Actually your wrong, first gcc is not the only compiler and a g++ compilers can optimize at link time, as was point out to me by the guys that wrote the DEC c++ compiler. And the point was that there's no less performance with c++, which your comment only reinforces. > > >>C++ and C are languages that are defined by ANSI >> >> > >No they're not. It may surprise you to learn that there is a whole >world outside the USA which does not care one whit about ANSI. > >DES > > I apologizes if you thought I was making any reference to nationality in that comment I was only trying to say that c++ is not owned by a corporation and as you point out is subject to the hole worlds views not just the interests of a small group of people who are only interested in there own profits. Don 8)