Anonymous user
Talk:Four bit adder: Difference between revisions
→C++ code size: good light follows inverse square of length law
m (→C++ code size: Sig.) |
(→C++ code size: good light follows inverse square of length law) |
||
Line 250:
==C++ code size==
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)
| |||