Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au!s872625
From: s872625@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Chris Cogdon [Brataccas])
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland C++ vs Microsoft C 5.10
Keywords: windows borland microsoft
Message-ID: <1991Mar25.014458.6877@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 25 Mar 91 01:44:58 GMT
References: <350@intertel.UUCP> <7320@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <1991Mar19.231934.2007@borland.com> <27e7f3b2.12fb@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre, Melbourne Australia.
Lines: 21

kwong@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Ka Chin Wong) writes:
>You know, in C, all variables are static bound (early bounding),
>but C++ allows dynamic bounding (late bounding) by means of
>virtual functions.  Would the additional bytes be the overhead
>to handle late bounding at runtime?

>Let's wait for the Microsoft C++ and do the comparison.

I would say that the dynamic binding facilities will only be used if you
actually write virtual functions -ie use the ++ part of C++.

Considering that a comparison is being made with MSC5.1, i'd say that the
test program is a STANDARD C program (no K&R vs ANSI here please) and that
the BC++ compiler is defaulting to standard C compiler (was this specified??
I don't think it'll make a difference anyway!)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cogdon [Brataccas]                 s872625@minyos.xx.rmit.oz
All spelling and gramatical errors are the fault of a malicious filter.
Semantic errors are the fault of a warped mind.