Subj : Re: OO compilers and efficiency
To   : comp.programming
From : Gerry Quinn
Date : Wed Jul 27 2005 02:37 pm

In article <1122402008.124827.269060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, 
robert.thorpe@antenova.com says...
> Chris Sonnack wrote:
> > websnarf@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > > So is the answer to the OP's question: you don't write code that is
> > > really C code, but rather, you translate it to C++ equivalents that
> > > behaves exactly like it was C code, so that the compiler can produce
> > > the same result?
> >
> > Sure, why not?  The upside of a mixed-mode language, like C++, is that
> > you can strip down to the bare essentials when necessary but also have
> > the language-supported abstraction of OOD available.
> 
> This is OK for little bits of code, but not for large pieces.
> 
> Doing this gives you all the downsides.  The developers must be
> conversant with C++, that is everybody must know what a virtual const
> friend private method is and how it behaves.  This also means all the
> developers have got to be really smart.

Nonsense.  The C-like bits should be encapsulated in classes with 
standard interfaces - there is no reason for them to be exposed to the 
main part of the program.

- Gerry Quinn

.