<story><title>Is C++ fast?</title><url>https://zeuxcg.org/2019/01/17/is-c-fast/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lultimouomo</author><text>So if you get rid of bounds check, reimplement your own feature-limited vector and hash table and &lt;i&gt;change the algorithm moving from a general purpose exact sort to an inexact, domain-specific one&lt;/i&gt;, you can improve your run time from 572ms to 320ms.&lt;p&gt;What does this have to do with C++?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>throwawaymath</author><text>I interpret the title to mean, &amp;quot;Is standard usage of C++ language features and the STL competitive with C?&amp;quot;. The author is basically showing how you improve performance by selectively tearing out more and more features C++ hands you out of the box. This is characteristic of writing C++ in a more C-like style. In that sense I think the author is correct.&lt;p&gt;However I&amp;#x27;d also say this is something already well known by most C and, particularly, C++ developers. Yes, you can get better performance by reimplementing much of what C++ gives you, and that is typical of writing C code instead of C++. But there&amp;#x27;s a fair bit of productivity trade off in doing so.</text></comment>
<story><title>Is C++ fast?</title><url>https://zeuxcg.org/2019/01/17/is-c-fast/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lultimouomo</author><text>So if you get rid of bounds check, reimplement your own feature-limited vector and hash table and &lt;i&gt;change the algorithm moving from a general purpose exact sort to an inexact, domain-specific one&lt;/i&gt;, you can improve your run time from 572ms to 320ms.&lt;p&gt;What does this have to do with C++?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>CoolGuySteve</author><text>Ya after changing the hash table and sort algorithms, the rest of the improvements are fairly minor (other than MSVC’s debug performance).&lt;p&gt;This is more like “is C++’s STL fast for me”.</text></comment>