- "Jonathan Blow: "C++ is a weird mess"" - 6 Updates
- Another fail, another post... - 2 Updates
- How exceptions are implemented? - 1 Update
| Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com>: Jul 21 01:45AM -0300 On 07/17/2018 02:47 PM, Richard wrote: >> Studio. I haven't found a Linux one as good. > CLion comes close. Visual Studio Code is well respected as an editor > on linux. My problem with CLion (and Eclipse CDT) is the slow code indexing, it's really slow. Qt Creator and Visual Studio don't have this problem. I use CMake in all cases. -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Jul 21 06:07PM +1200 On 21/07/18 16:45, Cholo Lennon wrote: > My problem with CLion (and Eclipse CDT) is the slow code indexing, it's > really slow. Qt Creator and Visual Studio don't have this problem. I use > CMake in all cases. Qt Creator and Visual Studio aren't written in (spit) Java. -- Ian. |
| Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com>: Jul 21 03:12PM -0300 On 07/21/2018 03:07 AM, Ian Collins wrote: >> really slow. Qt Creator and Visual Studio don't have this problem. I use >> CMake in all cases. > Qt Creator and Visual Studio aren't written in (spit) Java. Yeah, good point :-) To be fair, IntelliJ and Eclipse JEE work very well with big Java projects. What is more, I don't know why CLion and Eclipse CDT perform a full reindex every time I open a project, that's unnecessary IMO :-O -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Jul 21 03:15PM -0700 On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 3:51:57 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote: > However, I find myself working in larger problem spaces now and C > doesn't scale well to larger code bases because of its limited ability > to express abstractions directly in code. I wonder if 2011 C++ is the new C. I think a lot of people, myself included, have been surprised by the staying power of a language like C. Just as there have been some tweaks to C over the years, there will need to be a few to 2011 C++ -- support for string_view would be an obvious one. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - Enjoying programming again. http://webEbenezer.net https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Jul 22 10:42AM +1200 > a language like C. Just as there have been some tweaks to C > over the years, there will need to be a few to 2011 C++ -- > support for string_view would be an obvious one. There have been, c++14 and C++17, which includes std::string_view. -- Ian. |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Jul 21 04:25PM -0700 On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 5:42:46 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote: > > over the years, there will need to be a few to 2011 C++ -- > > support for string_view would be an obvious one. > There have been, c++14 and C++17, which includes std::string_view. I don't think all of those are needed -- the last two standards seem to be producing mixed results. I wish I could say that 2020 C++ was going to fix everything, but I'm skeptical at this point. Brian |
| Jeff-Relf.Me @.: Jul 21 02:32AM -0700 |
| lol <lol@lol.lol>: Jul 21 10:19PM > Wow, lazy evaluation instead of a proper if() and nested ? operators with comma > seperated multiple statements. And I thought Alfs code was an unmaintainable > mess but he has nothing on this guy. Our village idiot Jeff is clearly something, isn't he? |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Jul 20 12:27AM +0200 On 19/07/18 21:43, Paavo Helde wrote: >> to matter a great deal. > Well, then you compile with -Os or equivalent, and hope the compiler > does the right thing and optimizes for the size. Sure, you use the right flags (and the right compiler). And you also learn how to write code for such systems. My point is that the size of the binaries can matter here. > AFAIK there are even > special compilers for embedded devices which can create smaller binaries. Of course there are, especially for the very small devices (which are rarely programmed in C++ anyway). > In case of exception handling this means you trade some speed for the > size. TANSTAAFL. That is always the case with exception handling. Table-based exception implementations are designed to minimise the impact for normal runs, at the cost of speed or size for dealing with exceptions. Usually that's a good tradeoff. (In embedded systems, you often disable exceptions entirely.) > When you do compile without -Os then it means you do not care about the > size. No, it certainly does not. It merely means that you are making a choice other than having the compiler use size as the dominant factor in the compilation. -O2 compilation can sometimes be smaller, and is often a much more appropriate balance between size and speed (I'm assuming gcc here). In particular, regardless of the flags you use you may make design decisions aimed at smaller code space or at greater speed (or flexibility, or other criteria). |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment