Re: Question

[Eljay Love-Jensen <eljay@adobe.com>]

Hi Roberto,

C++ is not inherently slower (nor faster) than C.

Keep in mind:  bad programs (e.g., slow programs) can be written in any 
language.

What C++ does is provide language constructs for certain paradigms of 
programming that C doesn't support in the language itself.  Although those 
programming paradigms CAN be done in C, it's just that the language does 
not provide any assistance with those programming paradigms as part of the 
language specification.  (Paradigms such as generic programming, object 
oriented programming, and functional programming.)

Many scientific programs are written procedurally, and C is really good as 
a procedural programming implementation language.  (So is C++, since C++ is 
mostly a superset of C.)

For scientific programming, the primary language of choice is FORTRAN.  (My 
information may be out of date, but that was the case the last time I checked.)

Other "first choice" languages for scientific programming:  Mathematica, C, 
C++, and Ada.

My own opinion on scientific programming is to go with Mathematica.  Dr. 
Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" may not pass the sniff test, but his 
Mathematica is a beautiful tool/language for scientific and pure 
mathematics purposes.

My next preference is C++ (over C), since I think that object oriented 
programming and (slightly) stronger typing of C++ can help create 
correct/complete programs more easily in the scientific arena.  If you opt 
to investigate C++, I recommend adding in the BOOST (www.boost.org) libraries.

HTH,
--Eljay





At 09:11 AM 12/2/2004, Roberto Ausas wrote:
>Hi,
>
>My name is Roberto.I am developing a computational code for scientific
>calculations and I am using C and gcc to compile my programs. For
>different reasons, I have to decide whether to pass to C++ or not, so I
>would like to know if C++ programs (e.g. compiled with g++) are slower
>than C programs?
>
>Thank you in advance
>
>I look forward to hearing from you soon
>
>Regards
>
>Roberto