Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag
Flat wrong.
I have written programs in C++ that do barely anything and the executable comes out in the 100s of kb. And let's look at the way Windows programs come bundled... the usual way is you bundle install all the DLLs the program needs along with the program, because the alternative is "DLL Hell". I know, it completely negates the entire point of a shared library, but nevertheless it is the norm on Windows, because it has no way to manage dependencies. Linux is better on this front.
|
Sorry, but i have written programs in C++ as well and if your "hello world" is 100s of kb then you're doing something wrong.
Perhaps you shouldn't include heaps of .lib in your project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag
And i have worked on commercial projects in C++ (do i have to keep repeating myself?) that are full of the sort of bugs that could compromise an unprotected system (segmentation faults to you and me), granted i do generally remove more code than i add but the number of lines of code is really not the problem, it is the interdependency between the various parts, and especially because we just don't know exactly what the user will do until we actually give it to them to use. Some of the bug reports that come back are incredible, "i did X and it crashed," and i'm sitting there with my head in my hands going "why... why did you do that?" Of course it still shouldn't crash in any case, but we can only test cases that we can anticipate.
|
You know, design issues are more deadly than bare implementation. This, and not the compiler, leads to bloatware.
If you do new, then init, then function 1, then function 2, then function 3, then delete, instead of doing the whole job with a single call, you get larger code that's all.
I have disassembled megabytes of code, read megabytes of C/C++ sources as well, and very often i am stumped how things can be made complicated for stuff i'd have done with just a few lines...