Re: Java's performance far better that optimized C++
From: Rob Williscroft (rtw_at_freenet.co.uk)
Date: 06/17/04
- Next message: tom_usenet: "Re: Java's performance far better that optimized C++"
- Previous message: AngleWyrm: "Re: Does true ^ true return false?"
- In reply to: Mark A. Gibbs: "Re: Java's performance far better that optimized C++"
- Next in thread: Mark A. Gibbs: "Re: Java's performance far better that optimized C++"
- Reply: Mark A. Gibbs: "Re: Java's performance far better that optimized C++"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 17 Jun 2004 09:10:21 GMT
Mark A. Gibbs wrote in news:479Ac.292231$Ar.124314
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com in comp.lang.c++:
> assert some_test() : "Message on assertion fail";
>
> is actually:
>
> if (assertions_enabled_)
> {
> if (some_test())
> {
> throw new AssertionError("Message on assertion fail");
> }
> }
>
>
Why, when loading the class without asserts enabled can't the loader
just strip the whole thing ?. (rhetorical - of course it can).
Indeed (since were in c.l.c++) can't a C++ compiler compile to the
the java vm (I'm told its turing complete :) and #define assert( x )
as:
#define assert( x ) emit( "assert (%b) : \" #x "\";", x )
Not a fan of java BTW, just bored with this whole nonsense thread.
Rob.
-- http://www.victim-prime.dsl.pipex.com/
- Next message: tom_usenet: "Re: Java's performance far better that optimized C++"
- Previous message: AngleWyrm: "Re: Does true ^ true return false?"
- In reply to: Mark A. Gibbs: "Re: Java's performance far better that optimized C++"
- Next in thread: Mark A. Gibbs: "Re: Java's performance far better that optimized C++"
- Reply: Mark A. Gibbs: "Re: Java's performance far better that optimized C++"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
