Rockbox mail archive

• Next message: Nick Robinson: "RE: C++ in Rockbox"
• Previous message: noreply_at_sourceforge.net: "[ rockbox-Feature Requests-574014 ] Preferences+hold - implementation ideas"
• In reply to: Henri.David_at_nokia.com: "RE: C++ in Rockbox"
• Next in thread: Nick Robinson: "RE: C++ in Rockbox"
• Reply: Nick Robinson: "RE: C++ in Rockbox"
• Reply: Mats Lidell: "Re: C++ in Rockbox"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 Henri.David_at_nokia.com wrote:

> I would say the main advantage of C over C++ for this project is that C
> produce Faster and Smaller code. in this project, i guess we need both, fast
> ans small code.

I would say no to both statements. It is all up to how you write your code -
you can after all write C-code with a C++ compiler.

Naming a function lcd_update() or lcd::update() gives no difference. Björn
named the major advantages of using C.

But the likelyhood that somebody will make terrible slow and large code
has increased with C++. People has a tendency to use everything C++ offers
just because it is there (streams, new-operator, overloading operators, etc).

Let us protect ourself from those people :-)

  // Kjell

• Next message: Nick Robinson: "RE: C++ in Rockbox"
• Previous message: noreply_at_sourceforge.net: "[ rockbox-Feature Requests-574014 ] Preferences+hold - implementation ideas"
• In reply to: Henri.David_at_nokia.com: "RE: C++ in Rockbox"
• Next in thread: Nick Robinson: "RE: C++ in Rockbox"
• Reply: Nick Robinson: "RE: C++ in Rockbox"
• Reply: Mats Lidell: "Re: C++ in Rockbox"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]