From -5626712705817584528 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,109af18a94b8a35c X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e5cae9ffbf1dd57e X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-10-09 12:27:52 PST Xref: sparky comp.std.c++:1365 comp.lang.c++:14781 Path: sparky!uunet!portal!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!concert!decwrl!borland.com!pete From: pete@genghis.borland.com (Pete Becker) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: The concept of templates considered ill designed Message-ID: <1992Oct9.173821.9127@genghis.borland.com> Date: 9 Oct 92 17:38:21 GMT References: <1992Oct7.170351.16316@genghis.borland.com> Sender: news@borland.com (News Admin) Organization: Borland International Lines: 29 Originator: pete@genghis.borland.com In article osoelgaultier+@CMU.EDU (Stefan Monnier) writes: >> >> I think the argument in favor of compiling templates on their own has >> to focus on this point. What do you get out of it that you cannot get by >> simply using pointers? Easier coding, sure. But are there significant >> differences in the kind of things you can do with them? Or is this a solution >> in search of a problem? >> -- Pete > > >Who said there was no drawbacks ? > >Of course it may add some overhead (although development will be nicer cause >of typechecking and FASTER turn around time (though precompiled template >libraries)) > >Every advance in languages has been associated with an increased overhead: >from assembler to C, from C to C++: every time you switch to a higher level >language you lose some speed. > >I don't think particular change will add a big overhead. that's why I >think it's useful ! > > Stefan I'll repeat my question: what do you get out of it that you cannot get by simply using pointers? Simply asserting that it won't add big overhead does not establish that it is useful. -- PEte