Will there be performance and security improvements?

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is C faster than C++? Unless you use virtual functions, it’s as performant as C. And you definitely wouldn’t use virtual functions in a kernel.

      • Anti-Antidote@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        C++ is only as fast as C if you use only the parts of C++ that are identical to C. In other words, C is faster than C++

          • PuppyOSAndCoffee@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Compile time has got to be part of the convo esp when it comes to the kernel. The Linux kernel is one of the few bits where end-users are actively encouraged to compile from source. It is a feature!

            Adding C++ compilitis is pain for what gain, from a kernel pov.

            I am not a big fan of c++ overall however that is because other languages have emerged that are sweeter than C that gate some of the people issues with C++.

            Anyone who has ever had a thing that was like a thing but not exactly the thing, in C, knows C ain’t great at that.

            • cmeerw@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              The description says:

              In this video, we’ll do a deep dive on what C++ Polymorphism is, what “virtual” does under the hood, and ultimately why it is SUCH a performance hit compared to languages like C and Rust.

              This is not about compile-time polymorphism.

        • lloram239@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s just plainly false. A std::sort() for examples beats a qsort() easily. C just doesn’t have the tools to handle that kind of thing without a lot of manual code duplication.

          The reason for not using C++ is simply that it’s a huge monster of a language, that makes it difficult to find common ground for a programming style. In C that is much easier as you have much less features to worry about. It is more verbose and error prone, but also more predictable and easier to review, as the code you see is what you get in the binary. In C++ can have a mountain of stuff hidden behind operator overloading, exceptions and other stuff, which makes it very difficult to reason about.

          • Cpo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Aside from that I think C is more performant than C++ (indeed when you use the bells and whistles that C++ offers), you are comparing the libraries with each other.

            The fact that the implementation of one random std::Sort is faster than the implementation of qsort() is comparing libraries, not the languages. You are comparing the algorithm of the Rust Sort with quicksort (which is obviously the qsort you are referring to.

            I am certain there are sort implementations in C which outperform Rust.

            Having said that, I immensely enjoy Rust because it forces me to think about the error handling and it does not give me the quirks of C/C++ (index out of bounds, memory corruption).

            • lloram239@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              you are comparing the libraries with each other.

              It’s not the libraries that make the difference, but that C++ templates allow you to write generic code that is easy to use and easy to optimized for the compiler due to having all the real data types readily available, while C has to fiddle with void* and function pointer to get similar flexibility, which are much harder to optimize, as none of the type information is there.

              • Cpo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                while C has to fiddle with void* and function pointer to get similar flexibility, which are much harder to optimize, as none of the type information is there.

                I thought we were discussing speed, not ease of use?

                • lloram239@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you manually hand optimize every line of code, C and C++ are identical. That’s a worthless discussion to have. The point is that you can write in C++ high level code that would require substantial code duplication to match the speed in C, as C just doesn’t offer the tools for that level of abstraction.

                  • Cpo@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    …so now we are discussing not speed again but ease of use.

                    Not everything with an R in it is faster than C. Read up about it. Everyone says so.

                    I’m out.

      • Zatujit@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Since C++ has Turing complete compiling, I guess technically it can go infinite compilation time