Talk:Four bit adder: Difference between revisions
→C++ code size
(→C++ code size: good light follows inverse square of length law) |
|||
Line 251:
Is the C++ example so large because it needs to be that large to fulfil the task? I don't think the example given shows C++ in a good light due to its extreme length. Maybe it was copied from existing code used for another purpose? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 20:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
: Meh. The C++ code appears to be quite thorough and models the concept of physical devices pretty well. It's wordy, but that's C++. It actually can notice connection errors because everything exists as a device down to the input voltage sources. Compared to it, the C example is completely worthless as a "simulation", where you might have forgotten to put a voltage on one of the input pins and the program will merrily give you garbage output without noticing a thing. I suspect a lot of other languages also have this problem, which makes the task sort of much ado about nothing. It's very possible the C++ code can be shortened, but if it ends up like the C code, I'd prefer the way it is now, however much I hate long winded code. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 21:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
:: But the task description does not even mention voltages, nor does it ask us to build up the gates on simulated silicon (or any other such model). Meanwhile, you can build four bit adders using optical or mechanical gates, where voltages are not a meaningful concept. So it's not far to describe this issue as a problem with the implementations in other languages. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 22:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
| |||