4 ms·
language built-ins are not fully replaceable with extensions and libraries. Most notably: (1) Compilers have more ways to optimize if given higher level abstrac
by m_mueller 9y ago
language built-ins are not fully replaceable with extensions and libraries. Most notably: (1) Compilers have more ways to optimize if given higher level abstractions, (2) built-ins are easier to use for the user because of specific syntax (e.g. highlighting), (3) built-ins have support in debuggers (e.g. you can easily print an array slice in a Fortran debugger).
just a case in point: what do you think is easier to use, standards conformant and is more typesafe:
a) a typedef that gives you "__restrict const * const double"
b) declaring inputs as "real(8), intent(in)"
- justin_vanw 9y agoActually for C++ you are almost perfectly wrong. It's specifically a design goal of the language to not have the builtins be 'superior' to what you can implement yourself (well the builtins are built by world class experts, but the point is there is no bias in the language).
- m_mueller 9y agoThat's a design decision about the C++ language, but how does that make my arguments wrong?