Subject: Re: STL efficiency (Was: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad))
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1997/05/21
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++
Message-ID: <>

* 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!"

if we work harder, will obsolescence be farther ahead or closer?