C++ vs C

Re: C++ vs C

natush wrote:[color=blue]
> Hello,
> I'm writing an embedded application and I'm trying to decide whether to
> do it in C or C++. Does anyone know where I can find some statistic
> data comparing the two languages (size and performance)?
>
> Thanks,
> Nataly[/color]

Hi Nataly,

I don't think that you can make a comparison between the two languages
(in term of size or performance). Generally speaking they're both usable.

Perhaps you should take into account the performance you can get with
the compiler you're going to use.

Anyway, they're both efficient (if well compiled).
Probably you'd need a library or something similar and you should see if
it's available in C or C++.

Bye

Andrea

Re: C++ vs C

natush wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hello,
> I'm writing an embedded application and I'm trying to decide whether to
> do it in C or C++. Does anyone know where I can find some statistic
> data comparing the two languages (size and performance)?[/color]



http://www.research.att.com/~bs/esc99.html






--
Ioannis Vranos

Re: C++ vs C

natush wrote:[color=blue]
> Hello,
> I'm writing an embedded application and I'm trying to decide whether to
> do it in C or C++. Does anyone know where I can find some statistic
> data comparing the two languages (size and performance)?
>
> Thanks,
> Nataly
>[/color]

If you head for more abstraction in your code, then C++ is probably your
choice. As for code size and performance, this depends mostly on:

1. Your skill with the language
2. The quality of your compiler

If I were you, I'd check out what you really need in terms of code
complexity. Do you only need data abstraction and procedures? Then C is
probably what you're looking for.
Do you need a higher level of abstraction (classes)? Do you need highly
flexible code (generics)? Then C++ is probably the language of choice.

--
Regards,
Matthias

Re: C++ vs C


Ioannis Vranos wrote:[color=blue]
> natush wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Hello,
> > I'm writing an embedded application and I'm trying to decide[/color][/color]
whether to[color=blue][color=green]
> > do it in C or C++. Does anyone know where I can find some statistic
> > data comparing the two languages (size and performance)?[/color]
>
>
>
> http://www.research.att.com/~bs/esc99.html
>
> http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys/do...eaking-cpp.pdf
>[/color]

Not bad sources :-) but for more solid information see the ISO C++
committee's technical report on performance:
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/performanceTR.pdf

-- Bjarne Stroustrup; http://www.research.att.com/~bs

Re: C++ vs C

In article <1108242187.527 90@athnrd02>,
Ioannis Vranos <ivr@remove.thi s.grad.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>natush wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Hello,
>> I'm writing an embedded application and I'm trying to decide whether to
>> do it in C or C++. Does anyone know where I can find some statistic
>> data comparing the two languages (size and performance)?[/color]
>
>
>
>http://www.research.att.com/~bs/esc99.html
>
>http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys/do...eaking-cpp.pdf[/color]

You can see:


for an index on programming languages in terms of popularity.

Napi

--

Re: C++ vs C

Mohd Hanafiah Abdullah wrote:
[color=blue]
> You can see:
> http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm
>
> for an index on programming languages in terms of popularity.[/color]


This seems to agree in the general notion that C/C++ is no 1, however it
looks strange that C is number 1 and C++ number 2, since the opposite is
known to be generally true (for example IDC developer report of 2001
where it was mentioned that C/C++ was number 1 worldwide with C++ being
the most percent of it).




--
Ioannis Vranos

Re: C++ vs C

Mohd Hanafiah Abdullah wrote:

[ ... ]
[color=blue]
> You can see:
> http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm
>
> for an index on programming languages in terms of popularity.[/color]

This appears highly suspect to me. Ignoring C and C++ for the moment,
they show Verilog as being behind VHDL -- yet even the staunchest
advocates of VHDL generally agree that Verilog has a much larger market
share (probably 5 times as large).

Ultimately, they're measuring one thing, but reporting it as something
else entirely. What they're measuring seems to be mostly the number of
_posts_ about a language. Unfortunately, they're _reporting_ this as
indicating the number of lines of code written in that language.
TTBOMK, nobody has ever shown a direct relationship between the two. At
least IME, the relationship is mostly inverse -- when I'm cranking out
a lot of code, I rarely have time to post much.

Likewise, revisions to a language (contemplated or recent) tend to
generate a great deal of discussion. The code is written later, after
the language is (again) well understood and the discussion has largely
died down.

Personally, I think we can do quite a bit better by searching for
strings that are likely to occur once (and only once) per source file
to get at least a vague notion of the number of files in each language:

string hits
"import java.io" 902,000
"include <stdio.h>" 879,000
"include <iostream>" 404,000
"include <iostream.h>" 154,000

[Note: these numbers varied over even a short period of time -- maybe
Google was doing a crawl, or updating results from its last one, while
I was doing the searches. If you re-do the searches, expect results to
vary, but only slightly, at least if you re-do them soon.]

This has to be done carefully to produce meaningful results though.
Just for example, searching for "import java" produces over 2 million
hits, but a single Java source file will often start off three or four
import lines. Likewise this ignores the length of each piece of source
code (which probably varies with language), the percentage of code
written in that language that's visible to Google (e.g. probably a LOT
lower for COBOL than for C, C++ or Java), etc. Finally, I've made no
attempt to isolate particular dates like they're doing.

Even with all these shortcomings, I suspect it's still a better measure
of quantity of source code than looking for mentions of the language.

As mentioned above, I'm fairly sure some languages generate a higher
ratio of discussion to source code than others. For example, searching
for "java.io" instead of "import java.io" more than triples the number
of hits. By contrast, searching for 'iostream' without the 'include'
only increases the number of hits by about 50%. I, at least, would tend
to assume that in both cases the "extra" hits are mostly in
documentation, discussions, etc.

In the end, I'm a bit surprised that the results don't differ even more
greatly.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

Re: C++ vs C

Jerry Coffin wrote:[color=blue]
>
> This appears highly suspect to me. Ignoring C and C++ for the moment,
> they show Verilog as being behind VHDL -- yet even the staunchest
> advocates of VHDL generally agree that Verilog has a much larger market
> share (probably 5 times as large).
>
> Ultimately, they're measuring one thing, but reporting it as something
> else entirely. What they're measuring seems to be mostly the number of
> _posts_ about a language. Unfortunately, they're _reporting_ this as
> indicating the number of lines of code written in that language.
> TTBOMK, nobody has ever shown a direct relationship between the two. At
> least IME, the relationship is mostly inverse -- when I'm cranking out
> a lot of code, I rarely have time to post much.
>
> Likewise, revisions to a language (contemplated or recent) tend to
> generate a great deal of discussion. The code is written later, after
> the language is (again) well understood and the discussion has largely
> died down.
>
> Personally, I think we can do quite a bit better by searching for
> strings that are likely to occur once (and only once) per source file
> to get at least a vague notion of the number of files in each language:
>
> string hits
> "import java.io" 902,000
> "include <stdio.h>" 879,000
> "include <iostream>" 404,000
> "include <iostream.h>" 154,000
>
> [Note: these numbers varied over even a short period of time -- maybe
> Google was doing a crawl, or updating results from its last one, while
> I was doing the searches. If you re-do the searches, expect results to
> vary, but only slightly, at least if you re-do them soon.]
>
> This has to be done carefully to produce meaningful results though.
> Just for example, searching for "import java" produces over 2 million
> hits, but a single Java source file will often start off three or four
> import lines. Likewise this ignores the length of each piece of source
> code (which probably varies with language), the percentage of code
> written in that language that's visible to Google (e.g. probably a LOT
> lower for COBOL than for C, C++ or Java), etc. Finally, I've made no
> attempt to isolate particular dates like they're doing.
>
> Even with all these shortcomings, I suspect it's still a better measure
> of quantity of source code than looking for mentions of the language.
>
> As mentioned above, I'm fairly sure some languages generate a higher
> ratio of discussion to source code than others. For example, searching
> for "java.io" instead of "import java.io" more than triples the number
> of hits. By contrast, searching for 'iostream' without the 'include'
> only increases the number of hits by about 50%. I, at least, would tend
> to assume that in both cases the "extra" hits are mostly in
> documentation, discussions, etc.
>
> In the end, I'm a bit surprised that the results don't differ even more
> greatly.[/color]



Actually google contains hits of web sites that are portals/index
Usenet, and from that you may conclude how accurate these things are in
relation to jobs. Absolutely none.



For example we may reach the conclusion that photographers are the 70%
of the population jobs. :-)




--
Ioannis Vranos

Re: C++ vs C

Jerry Coffin wrote:[color=blue]
> Unfortunately, they're _reporting_ this as
> indicating the number of lines of code written in that language.[/color]

No, read again:

"Observe that the TPC index is not about the best programming language
or the language in which most lines of code have been written."

But overall I tend to agree that this index should be interpreted with
care, leave alone taking it as an accurate measurement for popularity of
programming languages.

--
Regards,
Matthias

Re: C++ vs C

Matthias wrote:

[ ... ]
[color=blue]
> No, read again:
>
> "Observe that the TPC index is not about the best programming
> language or the language in which most lines of code have been
> written."[/color]

Oops -- you're quite right, I misread it.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

Re: C++ vs C

natush wrote:[color=blue]
> Hello,
> I'm writing an embedded application and I'm trying to decide whether to
> do it in C or C++. Does anyone know where I can find some statistic
> data comparing the two languages (size and performance)?[/color]

In my personal embedded development experience, compared to C++, C is the
preferred language: smaller code and less buggy compilers

Re: C++ vs C

Julie wrote:
[color=blue]
> In my personal embedded development experience, compared to C++, C is
> the preferred language: smaller code and less buggy compilers[/color]


I have no experience of embedded programming, and just from curiosity,
what kind of embedded devices do you have in mind? (For example I have
in mind mainly Pocket PC handhelds with Windows CE and compact .net
framework).




--
Ioannis Vranos

Re: C++ vs C


Julie wrote:[color=blue]
> natush wrote:[color=green]
> > Hello,
> > I'm writing an embedded application and I'm trying to decide[/color][/color]
whether to[color=blue][color=green]
> > do it in C or C++. Does anyone know where I can find some statistic
> > data comparing the two languages (size and performance)?[/color]
>
> In my personal embedded development experience, compared to C++, C is[/color]
the[color=blue]
> preferred language: smaller code and less buggy compilers[/color]

Julie touches on one of the major points. Often choice of language for
an embedded application has to do with the available tools for the
platform. Having a better or more complete compiler/debugger/analyzer
for one OS/language combination can drive that selection regardless of
other factors.



Brian

Re: C++ vs C

In article <1108412893.697 653@athnrd02>, Ioannis Vranos
<ivr@remove.thi s.grad.com> writes[color=blue]
>Julie wrote:
>[color=green]
>> In my personal embedded development experience, compared to C++, C is
>> the preferred language: smaller code and less buggy compilers[/color]
>
>
>I have no experience of embedded programming, and just from curiosity,
>what kind of embedded devices do you have in mind? (For example I have
>in mind mainly Pocket PC handhelds with Windows CE and compact .net
>framework).[/color]


Most embedded engineers would see a Pocket PC as a small PC not an
embedded system. For serious embedded work WIN CE and .net is not an
option. Many embedded systems have a MTBF of 20 years. re-boots are not
an option.

The vast majority of embedded systems use 8 bit processors and have no
OS. About 60% of all processors produced are 8 bit I think. The average
car has over 50 embedded processors in it. Also virtually anything with
electric power on it usually has an embedded MCU (or two) in it.
Washing machines, microwaves, phones, hi-fi, missiles, torpedoes, locks,
elevators, any control or monitoring system, alarms,




/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/