On C/C++ undefined behaviours

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i4nqnk$19fd$2 at digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> If I have to use a program written in Language-X for awhile before it 
>> stops being slow, then I'm going to feel perfectly justified in calling 
>> Language-X a slow language.
>
> Also consider that Java really doesn't give you much to work with if you 
> want to take hand-tuning past a certain point.
>

Absolutely. In fact, that's why I take issue with all those old Java 
benchmarks that would compare Java code to *equivalent* C/C++ code 
(allegedly for the sake of a fair apples-to-apples): The C/C++ code can be 
further optimized, the Java can't. With .NET, you maybe can optimize to a 
certain extent, just because at least it *allows* pointers (although the 
type system gets in the way a lot - I once tried to convert a buffer to a 
struct in C# (think "idiomatic-C way to load a BMP-header"), and I spent 
hours trying to figure out how to do it without any 
copying/allocation/runtime-reflection before finally concluding "If it's 
possible, I no longer care how". In C/C++/D, I can do it with just a simple 
cast).