Subject: Re: STL efficiency (Was: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)) From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1997/05/21 Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++ Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Stephen Norman | I suspect that apparent poor performance comes from the inability of the | g++ 2.7.2 compiler to inline code generated from templates. I suspect | that if Mr. O'Keefe examined the code generated for his C++ program, he | would find it littered with call instructions that a better compiler | would have replaced with inline code. how is this argument any different from the argument that Lisp can be made extremely efficient by a "sufficiently smart compiler"? why are you C++ guys buying this argument when applied to C++ and vehemently object to it when applied to Lisp? "of course, C++ has to be fast, because it's heresy in my religion to say that it isn't!" #\Erik -- if we work harder, will obsolescence be farther ahead or closer?