Coder's Hang-out

[pkt-zer0]

One should worrry, it also goes through the processor like everything else. What if there is a faster way? Plus, i'm curious how they introduce forign things into it. The information could make things possible in the long run. Like calling VB functions from VB's OCX or whatever they are (their dlls i think they are) and using some of those functions. You don't see the point now, but think of it in other ways, such as, calling assembly code or doing things with C++ that directly mess with the hardware? Perhaps you want to make a program in C++ that overclocks or somthing like that. Or how about hardware drivers in C++! I thought that's what the << and >> was for anyway.

Learn to code drivers, then. Some people do that, too, I can't help it that I'm not interested.

Well, there are alot of things that are... Plus, i keep trying to get it but i can never find the thing.

The easiest thing would probably be for you to get Dev-C++, a graphical developer interface + minimal unix shell + gcc as compiler.

Processor processes the program, that means everything in it, therefor it reads what the OS says, therefor, assembly should have the last word even over the OS if the assembly code says so because it's send directly to the processor over the OS. We forget here, the processor is the computer itself and makes all the choices, the OS is just another program the processor calculates.

Hey. I only said that you don't need to go down to assembly level to redefine some constanst. Or make any other working program, for that matter. There are many more optimalizations that could be made on higher levels, like replacing certain algorithms.

Yea you do... Unless you know of a program that could convert some other things back to C or C++ so we can optimise it.

What I said above. Assembler is not the ultimate cure for slow speed. A crappy algorithm won't be any faster, even when it's written in ASM.

Exactly, therefor C is also object oriented.... Actually, with a little intellegence (and alot of hard to read code) you could actually use namespaces to as classes to do the same thing as objects. Only, you'd have to copy and paste the namespaces and rename them to make new objects. lol
That also means, you could emulate object orientation in structured language... What scares me is those languages that don't use functions or objects. o.o i think VB's one of them. lol

The thing is that by removing the extended functionality that C++ provides, you'd be having to make a lot of complex code syntaxes, making it hard to read. For example, due to lack of operator overloading, you'd always have to use certain functions, getting real ugly. That would kinda kick the concept of 'OOP being friendlier to use' in the nuts.