Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ vs. Other OOLs
Message-ID: <6590104@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 89 18:00:24 GMT
References: <2602@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 23

>   Does anyone have an opinion as to how far up the "ladder of
> abstraction" C can be pushed without destroying its best features
> (low-level expression = speed)?

So far C++ has done an extremely good job of avoiding adding
overhead to low level expressions -- With a few small syntactic
changes your favorite C code will compile under C++ and
run as fast, and generate just as small executables.

The slowness in coming up with a widely accepted memory manager
for C++ is to find a scheme that will work in all C[++]-like
applications -- including strict realtime applications.
Still, memory management seems a necessity for larger OOP
projects -- if only to debug and track down who isn't properly
freeing their objects!  A good, unobtrusive memory manager
can also collect objects that are lost under unusual circumstances --
when an exception causes a loss of an environment for example.

I see the limitations being the C-like syntax of C++.  Will
C-like syntax be acceptible for programming at a more and more
"high level"  -- or will the syntax become burdensome? 

But speed is not a problem.