Subject: Re: STL efficiency (Was: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)) From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 1997/06/10 Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++ Message-ID: <email@example.com> * firstname.lastname@example.org | A basic String class is "bleeding edge"??? I would have thought | providing a contrib String class with appropriate disclaimers would be | the *very least* I could expect from a compiler vendor. There isn't a | single customer who wouldn't at least consider using such a thing. It's | ridiculous to compare this to "random things customers find useful". but don't you get it? if C++ doesn't have something that somebody says is super-duper and ultra-efficient and mega-neat, it must be denigrated, ridiculed, scoffed at, because C++ is the very _embodiment_ of super-duper and ultra-efficient and mega-neat. nothing good can exist outside of the C++ camp. of course, a few select people are allowed to bring things in from the Scary Outside World, but it's obvious that anybody with Lisp experience is Not Allowed to even suggest what to look for. if a C++ program takes two hours to run, it's efficient. if a Lisp program takes two hours to run, it's grossly inefficient and nobody should use any other language than C++. if a C++ program requires 28M of memory just to read your mail, that's really cool. if a Lisp program requires 28M of memory just to read your mail, that's a ridiculous amount of memory and nobody should use any other language than C++. if a Lisp hacker says: "C++ really needs a basic string class that works right", the C++ community laughs and has a another other-language-bashing party. if Bjarne Stroustrup says: "C++ really needs a basic string class that works right", the C++ community rises in a unanimous "Yes, Massa!" and immediately thereafter start to denigrate, ridicule and scoff at languages that don't have a basic string class that works exactly the same way as C++'s, even though the C++ way is of course different from every other basic string class that works right. this is called "progress". it has been _most_ instructive to watch the greater C++ community try to explain away their failure to be as efficient as their religion commanded that C++ should be. "C++ is efficient" is a myth. it has been exploded. guys, get over it. C++ is _not_ efficient. with intelligence and hard work, you can write efficient programs in C++, too, but your code is not efficient just because it's written in C++ and not some other language. #\Erik -- soon to enter the six-bit generation. please do not be alarmed.