C++ performance myths debunked

[Gerson Kurz]

On 03 Aug 2002 12:45:19 +0800, Isaac To <kkto at csis.hku.hk> wrote:

>This is about the most stupid "debunk" to C++ efficiency.  You use the place
>where Python give you the most performance, a module written completely in C
>(the split method).  And then you compare it against the place where C++
>give you the worst performance, namely a deep template written in a way to
>give easy correctness rather than good performance (boost).  And now you
>claim that C++ is no better than Python.

I'm not claiming that C++ is no better than Python. I'm claiming, and
I quote: "Coming from C++ I always had suspicions about the
performance about all those neat string ops Python has - but it now
seems I have to reconsider some of my preconceptions". This is what I
said, this is what I meant. 

It would be foolish to think that Python is, always, on a par with C++
performance. It is not. 

Plus, I'm claiming that template syntax sucks pretty bad.