home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.mel.aone.net.au!usenet
- From: clyde@hitech.com.au (Clyde Smith-Stubbs)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: C or C++?
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 21:57:46 GMT
- Organization: HI-TECH Software
- Message-ID: <30eafb5c.1164011968@news.bne.aone.net.au>
- References: <4bsbu7$qmr@spectator.cris.com> <4bu0rg$7g@news.infi.net> <DKHwz2.57A@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
- Reply-To: clyde@hitech.com.au
- NNTP-Posting-Host: skyhawk.hitech.com.au
- X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99c/16.141
-
- On Mon, 1 Jan 1996 09:28:14 GMT, drogers@grizzly.cs.washington.edu
- (David Rogers) wrote:
-
- >But "smaller code" is not true. Au contraire,
- >I would expect that state of the art optimization will be more available
- >with C++ compilers.
-
- Do you have any evidence to support this? And whether it's true or
- not, it seems to me to be a non-issue for the teaching of a language.
- For teaching purposes, who cares if the compiler produces optimal
- machine code, or p-code or whatever? As long as it executes correctly,
- it serves the purpose.
-
-
- Clyde Smith-Stubbs | HI-TECH Software, | Voice: +61 7 3300 5011
- clyde@hitech.com.au | P.O. Box 103, Alderley, | Fax: +61 7 3300 5246
- http://www.hitech.com.au | QLD, 4051, AUSTRALIA. | BBS: +61 7 3300 5235
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- FREE! Download our shareware (FREE for noncommercial use) MS-DOS C Compiler!
- Point your Web browser at http://www.hitech.com.au/
-