public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: __attribute__((cleanup(function)) versus try/finally
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 05:46:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8lSFbj1Xw-B@khms.westfalen.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1052345885.5665.64.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com>

mark@codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell)  wrote on 07.05.03 in <1052345885.5665.64.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com>:

> Seriously, one of the few remaining objections to programming in C++ has
> been "exceptions add too much overhead".  Once we add unwind tables to C
> -- as all of our proposals do, including mine -- I'm not really sure
> what the point of programming in C is going to be any more.

To me, the worst thing about C++ is the syntax. As someone who wrote a  
parser, I'm sure you know better than I where all the skeletons lie.

The second worst thing is the concept of "POD" vs. "non-POD" types. This  
seems expressly designed to violate the principle of least surprise.

Exceptions aren't even in the running. Exceptions are something that's  
present in almost every modern language - but most don't have syntax  
backtracking, or types both with and without initialization by default  
(and you can't add it to those that haven't got it without major surgery).

Programmer overhead, to me, is much more important than implementation  
overhead. Especially if the implementation overhead is only on the slow  
path.

MfG Kai

  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-05-09  5:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <Pine.BSF.4.55.0305061457450.57349@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
     [not found] ` <1052245742.2583.315.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com>
     [not found]   ` <wvlissnc2e3.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com>
     [not found]     ` <1052249890.31850.338.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com>
2003-05-06 21:04       ` Jason Merrill
2003-05-06 21:24         ` Mark Mitchell
2003-05-07 21:21           ` Jason Merrill
2003-05-07 22:18             ` Mark Mitchell
2003-05-07 23:01               ` Jason Merrill
2003-05-08 12:05               ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-05-09  5:46               ` Kai Henningsen [this message]
2003-05-06 21:52         ` Anthony Green
2003-05-08 17:44         ` Mike Stump
2003-05-08 17:45           ` Jason Merrill
2003-05-08 18:40             ` Mark Mitchell
2003-05-08 19:06               ` Alexandre Oliva
2003-05-08 19:47                 ` Mark Mitchell
2003-05-08 20:19                   ` Alexandre Oliva
2003-05-08 21:18                   ` Jason Merrill
2003-05-13 21:10                     ` Mark Mitchell
2003-05-13 21:25                       ` Richard Henderson
2003-05-13 21:41                         ` Mark Mitchell
2003-05-13 22:16                           ` Richard Henderson
2003-05-13 21:31                       ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-05-15 17:00                       ` Jason Merrill
2003-05-15 17:23                         ` Mark Mitchell
2003-05-09 19:41                   ` Kai Henningsen
2003-05-08 19:37               ` Jason Merrill
2003-05-07  0:14   ` Richard Henderson
2003-05-07  2:32     ` Mark Mitchell
2003-05-13 21:33 Richard Kenner
2003-05-13 22:11 ` Richard Henderson
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-05-09  9:54 Ranjit Mathew
2003-05-09 10:16 ` Andrew Haley
2003-05-09 12:08   ` Fergus Henderson
2003-05-09 12:49   ` Jamie Lokier
2003-05-09  9:23 Ranjit Mathew
2003-05-09  9:31 ` Andrew Haley
2003-05-08  7:49 Ranjit Mathew
2003-05-08 21:21 ` Richard Henderson
2003-05-07 10:18 Ranjit Mathew
2003-05-07 13:54 ` Jason Merrill
2003-05-07 18:23 ` Richard Henderson
2003-05-08 18:02 ` Mike Stump
2003-05-06 19:56 Jason Merrill
2003-05-08 11:59 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-05-08 15:02   ` Jason Merrill
2003-05-08 18:30 ` Mike Stump
2003-05-08 20:49   ` Richard Henderson
2003-05-08 22:29     ` Mike Stump
2003-05-13  0:07       ` Geoff Keating
2003-05-13 21:27         ` Richard Henderson
2003-05-14  1:14           ` Geoff Keating
2003-05-14  7:41             ` Richard Henderson
2003-05-14 21:11               ` Geoff Keating
2003-05-14 22:20                 ` Richard Henderson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=8lSFbj1Xw-B@khms.westfalen.de \
    --to=kaih@khms.westfalen.de \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).