On May 29, 2008, at 4:24 AM, Robert Ammerman wrote:
> A reductio ad absurdium argument on the 'hidden overhead' point  
> would have us all writing in assembly (which I rather like, but...)

I agree, and writing in C++ may be perfectly OK for exactly the same  
reasons that writing in a language other than assembler is frequently  
OK.

> I submit that an _experienced_, _knowledgeable_, C++ programmer has  
> a similar understanding of the overheads involved in C++

An "experience, knowledgeable, EMBEDDED C++ programmer" perhaps.  I'd  
claim that there are a lot of people who would claim experience and  
knowledge that haven't got a clue which C++ constructs are  
"expensive", because in their usual application environment of 2+GHz  
and 1GB ram, they don't have to.  (These same sorts probably wouldn't  
do any better in C, though.)  I mean, you've seen the size and  
inefficiency of the average windows program, right?

BillW


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist