Slow performance compared to C++, ideas?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 01:05:28 -0400, Simen Kjaeraas  
<simen.kjaras at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 06:16:45 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer  
> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I think it is unfair to say most classes are not base classes.  This  
>> would mean most classes are marked as final.  I don't think they are.   
>> One of the main reasons to use classes in the first place is for  
>> extendability.
>
> This is false. Consider this hierarchy: A->B->C, where x->y means 'x
> derives from y'. There is only one base class (A), and only one class
> that may be marked final (C). This will often be the case.

I think you mean the other way around.  x->y means 'y derives from x'.   
But I get your point.

However, it's an invalid point.  By this logic there is exactly one base  
class, Object.  I think it's safe to say that way of thinking is not  
productive.  Any class that is not final can be a base class.  The classes  
it derives from are not relevant (including Object).

>> BTW, did you know you can extend a base class and simply make the  
>> extension final, and now all the methods on that derived class become  
>> non-virtual calls?  Much easier to do than making the original base  
>> virtual (Note I haven't tested this to verify, but if not, it should be  
>> changed in the compiler).
>
> This does however not help one iota when you have a reference to a base
> class. This will also often be the case.

I believe this is a red herring.  If you are not in control of the  
creation of the object, the system may actually REQUIRE virtuality, since  
the base pointer might actually be to a derived type.

-Steve