From: Christian Krüger (christian.krueger_at_pace.de)
Date: 2003-03-06 16:36:41
Hi, > Well, Java would be a bit heavy and slow, but C++ should be about as > fast as C I'd think... maybe a speed penalty during some constructors > and destructors and returning sizable objects. all member-functions will get slower (ok,ok static members not.. ;-) ). The compiler have allways to supply the 'this'-pointer and every access to class functions & members is indirect. (Bigger & slower... as I said.) I'm not talking about the virtual function table here - this would increase the program-size additionally... It would also be 'funny' to return class-objects - Remember: cc65 doesn't support even 'struct' returns. (And as we all like fast programs, this is not a limitation to be worry about... ;-) ) >Actually, I think I'd be happy with doubles for now :) It would be of course interessting how much memory is left when IEEE is fully supported... (with <math.h>) Regards chrisker ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2003-03-06 16:37:10 CET