Re: C++ vs. C#

From:

SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:17:04 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID:

<5c82c396-5546-41d6-b64b-fbc62252de4e@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com>

On 31 Dez., 03:01, SG <s.gesem...@gmail.com> wrote:

You have to do better than saying "look up the C# documentation". I
didn't find any definition of "lightweight". But the way this word is
used suggests that Microsoft likes to call value types "lightweight":

  "The struct type is suitable for representing lightweight objects
   such as Point, Rectangle, and Color. Although it is possible to
   represent a point as a class, a struct is more efficient in some
   scenarios. For example, if you declare an array of 1000 Point
   objects, you will allocate additional memory for referencing each
   object. In this case, the struct is less expensive."

  "In C#, a struct is like a lightweight class; it is a stack-
   allocated type that can implement interfaces but does not support
   inheritance."

After reading it again I think "lightweight" just seems to refer to
"small" objects that can be easily copied without too much runtime
overhead. There is no clear definition of "lightweight" just as there
is no one for "small" or "too much runtime overhead". Vague terms. Of
course it makes sense to have value semantics for many "lightweight
objects". That use of the word lightweight would render reference
counting smart pointers as "lightweight objects" for example -- even
though they are non-PODs and regardlessly of such an objects lives in
the free store or is an automatic variable.

Cheers!
SG