Quote:

C++ is a multiparadigm language; you can write procedural code, object-oriented code, template metaprogramming code... it's speed depends on the code you write (and the compiler), nothing about C++ makes it automatically slower than C.

Correct, but when you learn C++, most of the time thy don't tell you about printf over cout << or any other C equivalents, they just tell you the C++'s standard library (even though it's not part of the C++ language, and is only included with almost every compiler). That's the problem, they teach you the slow stuff... It was only by a random topic i found in another community that told me that the C equivalents were faster and that there even were any.

Quote:

Nor more secure, really, if you still use libc.

I'm not sure how it works, but sometimes in C, you can make calls to functions and not fill all the parameters. It's this assembly too, not all macros or functions have to have their parameters filled. The alert boxes come to mind.

That makes C++ a little easier to debug than C or assembly, which shouldn't really matter to the perfect coder, but everyone makes mistakes. Here's a tip for your friends though, make them learn assembly, cause you won't beleive how much un-worth it, it really is.

Something i saw from a web page i'm learning Assembly off of. And it's very true that how many people who know C++ or such Curse at assembly. Why? the time consuming thing. I'm not kidding you, a C++ teacher at my school said he saw his friend coding in assembly and he thought it was crazy or insane.

Quote:

Nor more secure, really, if you still use libc.

I'm not sure how it works, but sometimes in C, you can make calls to functions and not fill all the parameters. It's this assembly too, not all macros or functions have to have their parameters filled. The alert boxes come to mind.

void function(int a, int b){
//Pretend code is here...
return; }

void main(){
function(2);
return; }    

exturn "C"    

In fact, by learning and using assembly to program, I've learned more about how my hardware works, and programming, and I believe I've become a better programmer in general because of it.

Code:

exturn "C"    

Sometimes works

I'd like to see C(not C++) that uses fasm as backend and has samekind of design principles or atleast allows fasm to be used in __asm{}.


edit: even if it would compile for just ia32

Code:

void function(int a, int b){ 
//Pretend code is here... 
return; } 

void main(){ 
function(2); 
return; }
    

I was told that code would compile in C, and i know for a fact it won't compile in C++. And incase you're about to ask me then how printf works...?

Does Context count? It's similar to C, kinda sorta.

I prefer it.

it just mean your program DOESN'T return value. It same as stating that function declared as returning void is bug - it also leaves junk in EAX, which can be tested some way

system doesn't care about return code of app - it's caller that does. same way as in functions.

what is reason to treat this one thing specially? if program doesn't have anything to return...

vid wrote:

system doesn't care about return code of app - it's caller that does. same way as in functions.

Sure... but if you use a tool from a makefile, you better damn be sure that it returns 0.

vid wrote:

what is reason to treat this one thing specially? if program doesn't have anything to return...

Why treat callbacks specially? If they don't have anything to return...

main() is called from an external source outside of your control (ie, the libc crt0 code) - so it's a no-brainer, really, that it should follow a standard signature. Try making it STDCALL, for instance.

Btw both GCC and VC2003 "xor eax, eax" if you don't return anything from main. For "int main" without a return statement this is standardized because it implicitly returns 0 then. For void main, this smells more like a fix for bad and broken code... any other void function does NOT have EAX cleared on exit.