3 ms·
"most researchers prefer an inefficient language because it's easier to get a paper to improve an inefficient language... I've seen dozens of papers on getting
by toolslive 11y ago
"most researchers prefer an inefficient language because it's easier to get a paper to improve an inefficient language... I've seen dozens of papers on getting lisp almost as fast as C++, on getting Java almost as fast as C++. You can't do that with C++".
A paper from the man himself on getting a type switch in C++ almost as fast as what you get in OCaml. http://www.stroustrup.com/OOPSLA-typeswitch-draft.pdf http://www.stroustrup.com/OOPSLA-typeswitch-draft.pdf
Lot's of other places where he's omitting things because he wants to plug C++.
Also, he also seems to be confused between "an efficient language" and "a language that allows you to create something that runs efficiently".
- acqq 11y agoIt appears according to the abstract that it beats other languages while being implemented as "just a library": "Our library-only implementation (...) For many uses, it equals or outperforms equivalent code in languages with built-in type-switching constructs, such as OCaml and Haskell" In my opinion major weakness of C++ is just that the linker features more or less remained out of the language design. Turbo Pascal already shown eons ago the advantages of having modules instead of obj files. The slowness of compilation is still the major problem of C++ compared to the languages like Turbo Pascal and more recently Go.
- toolslive 11y agofigure 5 in the paper.