When programming a CPU intensive or GPU intensive application on the iPhone or other portable hardware, you have to make wise algorithmic decisions to make your code fast.
But even great algorithm choices can be slow if the language you're using performs more poorly than another.
Is there any hard data comparing Objective-C to C++, specifically on the iPhone but maybe just on the Mac desktop, for performance of various similar language aspects? I am very familiar with this article comparing C and Objective-C, but this is a larger question of comparing two object oriented languages to each other.
For example, is a C++ vtable lookup really faster than an Obj-C message? How much faster? Threading, polymorphism, sorting, etc. Before I go on a quest to build a project with duplicate object models and various test code, I want to know if anybody has already done this and what the results where. This type of testing and comparison is a project in and of itself and can take a considerable amount of time. Maybe this isn't one project, but two and only the outputs can be compared.
I'm looking for hard data, not evangelism. Like many of you I love and hate both languages for various reasons. Furthermore, if there is someone out there actively pursuing this same thing I'd be interesting in pitching in some code to see the end results, and I'm sure others would help out too. My guess is that they both have strengths and weaknesses, my goal is to find out precisely what they are so that they can be avoided/exploited in real-world scenarios.
Mike Ash has some hard numbers for performance of various Objective-C method calls versus C and C++ in his post "Performance Comparisons of Common Operations". Also, this post
by Savoy Software is an interesting read when it comes to tuning the performance of an iPhone application by using Objective-C++.
I tend to prefer the clean, descriptive syntax of Objective-C over Objective-C++, and have not found the language itself to be the source of my performance bottlenecks. I even tend to do things that I know sacrifice a little bit of performance if they make my code much more maintainable.
Yes, well written C++ is considerably faster. If you're writing performance critical programs and your C++ is not as fast as C (or within a few percent), something's wrong. If your ObjC implementation is as fast as C, then something's usually wrong -- i.e. the program is likely a bad example of ObjC OOD because it probably uses some 'dirty' tricks to step below the abstraction layer it is operating within, such as direct ivar accesses.
The Mike Ash 'comparison' is very misleading -- I would never recommend the approach to compare execution times of programs you have written, or recommend it to compare C vs C++ vs ObjC. The results presented are provided from a test with compiler optimizations disabled. A program compiled with optimizations disabled is rarely relevant when you are measuring execution times. To view it as a benchmark which compares C++ against Objective-C is flawed. The test also compares individual features, rather than entire, real world optimized implementations -- individual features are combined in very different ways with both languages. This is far from a realistic performance benchmark for optimized implementations. Examples: With optimizations enabled, IMP cache is as slow as virtual function calls. Static dispatch (as opposed to dynamic dispatch, e.g. using virtual) and calls to known C++ types (where dynamic dispatch may be bypassed) may be optimized aggressively. This process is called devirtualization, and when it is used, a member function which is declared virtual may even be inlined. In the case of the Mike Ash test where many calls are made to member functions which have been declared virtual and have empty bodies: these calls are optimized away entirely when the type is known because the compiler sees the implementation and is able to determine dynamic dispatch is unnecessary. The compiler can also eliminate calls to malloc in optimized builds (favoring stack storage). So, enabling compiler optimizations in any of C, C++, or Objective-C can produce dramatic differences in execution times.
That's not to say the presented results are entirely useless. You could get some useful information about external APIs if you want to determine if there are measurable differences between the times they spend in pthread_create or +[NSObject alloc] on one platform or architecture versus another. Of course, these two examples will be using optimized implementations in your test (unless you happen to be developing them). But for comparing one language to another in programs you compile… the presented results are useless with optimizations disabled.
Object Creation
Consider also object creation in ObjC - every object is allocated dynamically (e.g. on the heap). With C++, objects may be created on the stack (e.g. approximately as fast as creating a C struct and calling a simple function in many cases), on the heap, or as elements of abstract data types. Each time you allocate and free (e.g. via malloc/free), you may introduce a lock. When you create a C struct or C++ object on the stack, no lock is required (although interior members may use heap allocations) and it often costs just a few instructions or a few instructions plus a function call.
As well, ObjC objects are reference counted instances. The actual need for an object to be a std::shared_ptr in performance critical C++ is very rare. It's not necessary or desirable in C++ to make every instance a shared, reference counted instance. You have much more control over ownership and lifetime with C++.
Arrays and Collections
Arrays and many collections in C and C++ also use strongly typed containers and contiguous memory. Since the address of the next element's members are often known, the optimizer can do much more, and you have great cache and memory locality. With ObjC, that's far from reality for standard objects (e.g. NSObject).
Dispatch
Regarding methods, many C++ implementations use few virtual/dynamic calls, particularly in highly optimized programs. These are static method calls and fodder for the optimizers.
With ObjC methods, each method call (objc message send) is dynamic, and is consequently a firewall for the optimizer. Ultimately, that results in many restrictions or inconveniences regarding what you can and cannot do to keep performance at a minimum when writing performance critical ObjC. This may result in larger methods, IMP caching, frequent use of C.
Some realtime applications cannot use any ObjC messaging in their render paths. None -- audio rendering is a good example of this. ObjC dispatch is simply not designed for realtime purposes; Allocations and locks may happen behind the scenes when messaging objects, making the complexity/time of objc messaging unpredictable enough that the audio rendering may miss its deadline.
Other Features
C++ also provides generics/template implementations for many of its libraries. These optimize very well. They are typesafe, and a lot of inlining and optimizations may be made with templates (consider it polymorphism, optimization, and specialization which takes place at compilation). C++ adds several features which just are not available or comparable in strict ObjC. Trying to directly compare langs, objects, and libraries which are very different is not so useful -- it's a very small subset of actual realizations. It's better to expand the question to a library/framework or real program, considering many aspects of design and implementation.
Other Points
C and C++ symbols can be more easily removed and optimized away in various stages of the build (stripping, dead code elimination, inlining and early inlining, as well as Link Time Optimization). The benefits of this include reduced binary sizes, reduced launch/load times, reduced memory consumption, etc.. For a single app, that may not be such a big deal; but if you reuse a lot of code, and you should, then your shared libraries could add a lot of unnecessary weight to the program, if implemented ObjC -- unless you are prepared to jump through some flaming hoops. So scalability and reuse are also factors in medium/large projects, and groups where reuse is high.
Included Libraries
ObjC library implementors also optimize for the environment, so its library implementors can make use of some language and environment features to offer optimized implementations. Although there are some pretty significant restrictions when writing an optimized program in pure ObjC, some highly optimized implementations exist in Cocoa. This is one of Cocoa's strong points, although the C++ standard library (what some people call the STL) is no slouch either. Cocoa operates at a much higher level of abstraction than C++ -- if you don't know well what you're doing (or should be doing), operating closer to the metal can really cost you. Falling back on to a good library implementation if you are not an expert in some domain is a good thing, unless you are really prepared to learn. As well, Cocoa's environments are limited; you can find implementations/optimizations which make better use of the OS.
If you're writing optimized programs and have experience doing so in both C++ and ObjC, clean C++ implementations will often be twice as fast or faster than clean ObjC (yes, you can compare against Cocoa). If you know how to optimize, you can often do better than higher level, general purpose abstractions. Although, some optimized C++ implementations will be as fast as or slower than Cocoa's (e.g. my initial attempt at file I/O was slower than Cocoa's -- primarily because the C++ implementation initializes its memory).
A lot of it comes down to the language features you are familiar with. I use both langs, they both have different strengths and models/patterns. They complement each other quite well, and there are great libraries for both. If you're implementing a complex, performance critical program, correct use of C++'s features and libraries will give you much more control and provide significant advantages for optimization, such that in the right hands, "several times faster" is a good default expectation (don't expect to win every time, or without some work, however). Remember, it takes years to understand C++ well enough to really reach that point.
I keep the majority of my performance critical paths as C++, but also recognize that ObjC is also a very good solution for some problems, and that there are some very good libraries available.
It's very hard to collect "hard data" for this that's not misguiding.
The biggest problem with doing a feature-to-feature comparison like you suggest is that the two languages encourage very different coding styles. Objective-C is a dynamic language with duck typing, where typical C++ usage is static. The same object-oriented architecture problem would likely have very different ideal solutions using C++ or Objective-C.
My feeling (as I have programmed much in both languages, mostly on huge projects): To maximize Objective-C performance, it has to be written very close to C. Whereas with C++, it's possible to make much more use of the language without any performance penalty compared to C.
Which one is better? I don't know. For pure performance, C++ will always have the edge. But the OOP style of Objective-C definitely has its merits. I definitely think it is easier to keep a sane architecture with it.
This really isn't something that can be answered in general as it really depends on how you use the language features. Both languages will have things that they are fast at, things that they are slow at, and things that are sometimes fast and sometimes slow. It really depends on what you use and how you use it. The only way to be certain is to profile your code.
In Objective C you can also write c++ code, so it might be easier to code in Objective C for the most part, and if you find something that doesn't perform well in it, then you can have a go at writting a c++ version of it and seeing if that helps (C++ tends to optimize better at compile time). Objective C will be easier to use if APIs you are interfacing with are also written in it, plus you might find it's style of OOP is easier or more flexible.
In the end, you should go with what you know you can write safe, robust code in and if you find an area that needs special attention from the other language, then you can swap to that. X-Code does allow you to compile both in the same project.
I have a couple of tests I did on an iPhone 3G almost 2 years ago, there was no documentation or hard numbers around in those days. Not sure how valid they still are but the source code is posted and attached.
This isn't a very extensive test, I was mainly interested in NSArray vs C Array for iterating a large number of objects.
http://memo.tv/nsarray_vs_c_array_performance_comparison
http://memo.tv/nsarray_vs_c_array_performance_comparison_part_ii_makeobjectsperformselector
You can see the C Array is much faster at high iterations. Since then I've realized that the bottleneck is probably not the iteration of the NSArray but the sending of the message. I wanted to try methodForSelector and calling the methods directly to see how big the difference would be but never got round to it. According to Mike Ash's benchmarks it's just over 5x faster.
I don't have hard data for Objective C, but I do have a good place to look for C++.
C++ started as C with Classes according to Bjarne Stroustroup in his reflection on the early years of C++ (http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/hopl2.pdf), so C++ can be thought of (like Objective C) as pushing C to its limits for object orientation.
What are those limits? In the 1994-1997 time frame, a lot of researchers figured out that object-orientation came at a cost due to dynamic binding, e.g. when C++ functions are marked virtual and there may/may not be children classes that override these functions. (In Java and C#, all functions expect ctors are inherently virtual, and there isnt' much you can do about it.) In "A Study of Devirtualization Techniques for a Java Just-In-Time Compiler" from researchers at IBM Research Tokyo, they contrast the techniques used to deal with this, including one from Urz Hölzle and Gerald Aigner. Urz Hölzle, in a separate paper with Karel Driesen, had shown that on average 5.7% of time in C++ programs (and up to ~50%) was spent in calling virtual functions (e.g. vtables + thunks). He later worked with some Smalltalk researachers in what ended up the Java HotSpot VM to solve these problems in OO. Some of these features are being backported to C++ (e.g. 'protected' and Exception handling).
As I mentioned, C++ is static typed where Objective C is duck typed. The performance difference in execution (but not lines of code) probably is a result of this difference.
This study says to really get the performance in a CPU intensive game, you have to use C. The linked article is complete with a XCode project that you can run.
I believe the bottom line is: Use Objective-C where you must interact with the iPhone's functions (after all, putting trampolines everywhere can't be good for anyone), but when it comes to loops, things like vector object classes, or intensive array access, stick with C++ STL or C arrays to get good performance.
I mean it would be totally silly to see position = [[Vector3 alloc] init] ;. You're just asking for a performance hit if you use references counts on basic objects like a position vector.
yes. c++ reign supreme in performance/expresiveness/resource tradeoff.
"I'm looking for hard data, not evangelism". google is your best friend.
obj-c nsstring is swapped with c++'s by apple enginneers for performance. in a resource constrained devices, only c++ cuts it as a MAINSTREAM oop language.
NSString stringWithFormat is slow
obj-c oop abstraction is deconstructed into procedural-based c-structs for performance, otherwise a MAGNITUDE order slower than java! the author is also aware of message caching - yet no-go. so modeling lots of small players/enemies objects is done in oop with c++ or else, lots of Procedural structs with a simple OOP wrapper around it with obj-c. there can be one paradigm that equates Procedural + Object-Oriented Programming = obj-c.
http://ejourneyman.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/writing-a-ray-tracer-for-cocoa-objective-c/
Related
I want to know whether there is an effect on program efficiency by adopting object oriented approach to a problem as compared to the structured programming approach in any programming language but specially in c++.
Maybe. Maybe not.
You can write efficient object-oriented code. You can write inefficient structured code.
It depends on the application, how well the code is written, and how heavily the code is optimized. In general, you should write code so that it has a good, clean, modular architecture and is well designed, then if you have problems with performance optimize the hot spots that are causing performance issues.
Use object oriented programming where it makes sense to use it and use structured programming where it makes sense to use it. You don't have to choose between one and the other: you can use both.
I remember back in the early 1990's when C++ was young there were studies done about this. If I remember correctly, the guys who took (well written) C++ programs and recoded them in C got around a 15% increase in speed. The guys who took C programs and recoded them in C++, and modified the imperative style of C to an OO style (but same algorithms) for C++ got the same or better performance. The apparent contradiction was explained by the observation that the C programs, in being translated to an object oriented style, became better organized. Things that you did in C because it was too much code and trouble to do better could more easily be done properly in C++.
Thinking back about this I wonder about the conclusion some. Writing a program a second time will always result in a better program, so it didn't have to be imperative to OO style that made the difference. Todays computer architectures are designed with hardware support for common operations done by OO programs, and compilers have gotten better at using the instructions, so I think that it is likely that whatever overhead a virtual function call had in 1992 it is far smaller today.
There doesn't have to be, if you are very careful to avoid it. If you just take the most straightforward approach, using dynamic allocation, virtual functions, and (especially) passing objects by value, then yes there will be inefficiency.
It doesn't have to be. Algorithm is all matters. I agree encapsulation will slow you down little bit, but compilers are there to optimize.
You would say no if this is the question in computer science paper.
However in the real development environment this tends to be true if the OOP paradigm is used correctly. The reason is that in real development process, we generally need to maintain our code base and that the time when OOP paradigm could help us. One strong point of OOP over structured programming like C is that in OOP it is easier to make the code maintainable. When the code is more maintainable, it means less bug and less time to fix bug and less time needed for implementing new features. The bottom line is then we will have more time to focus on the efficiency of the application.
The problem is not technical, it is psychological. It is in what it encourages you to do by making it easy.
To make a mundane analogy, it is like a credit card. It is much more efficient than writing checks or using cash. If that is so, why do people get in so much trouble with credit cards? Because they are so easy to use that they abuse them. It takes great discipline not to over-use a good thing.
The way OO gets abused is by
Creating too many "layers of abstraction"
Creating too much redundant data structure
Encouraging the use of notification-style code, attempting to maintain consistency within redundant data structures.
It is better to minimize data structure, and if it must be redundant, be able to tolerate temporary inconsistency.
ADDED:
As an illustration of the kind of thing that OO encourages, here's what I see sometimes in performance tuning: Somebody sets SomeProperty = true;. That sounds innocent enough, right? Well that can ripple to objects that contain that object, often through polymorphism that's hard to trace. That can mean that some list or dictionary somewhere needs to have things added to it or removed from it. That can mean that some tree or list control needs controls added or removed or shuffled. That can mean windows are being created or destroyed. It can also mean some things need to be changed in a database, which might not be local so there's some I/O or mutex locking to be done.
It can really get crazy. But who cares? It's abstract.
There could be: the OO approach tends to be closer to a decoupled approach where different modules don't go poking around inside each other. They are restricted to public interfaces, and there is always a potential cost in that. For example, calling a getter instead of just directly examining a variable; or calling a virtual function by default because the type of an object isn't sufficiently obvious for a direct call.
That said, there are several factors that diminish this as a useful observation.
A well written structured program should have the same modularity (i.e. hiding implementations), and therefore incur the same costs of indirection. The cost of calling a function pointer in C is probably going to be very similar to the cost of calling a virtual function in C++.
Modern JITs, and even the use of inline methods in C++, can remove the indirection cost.
The costs themselves are probably relatively small (typically just a few extra simple operations per instruction call). This will be insignificant in a program where the real work is done in tight loops.
Finally, a more modular style frees the programmer to tackle more complicated, but hopefully less complex algorithms without the peril of low level bugs.
I am wondering if it is still worth with modern compilers and their optimizations to write some critical code in C instead of C++ to make it faster.
I know C++ might lead to bad performance in case classes are copied while they could be passed by reference or when classes are created automatically by the compiler, typically with overloaded operators and many other similar cases; but for a good C++ developer who knows how to avoid all of this, is it still worth writing code in C to improve performance?
I'm going to agree with a lot of the comments. C syntax is supported, intentionally (with divergence only in C99), in C++. Therefore all C++ compilers have to support it. In fact I think it's hard to find any dedicated C compilers anymore. For example, in GCC you'll actually end up using the same optimization/compilation engine regardless of whether the code is C or C++.
The real question is then, does writing plain C code and compiling in C++ suffer a performance penalty. The answer is, for all intents and purposes, no. There are a few tricky points about exceptions and RTTI, but those are mainly size changes, not speed changes. You'd be so hard pressed to find an example that actually takes a performance hit that it doesn't seem worth it do write a dedicate module.
What was said about what features you use is important. It is very easy in C++ to get sloppy about copy semantics and suffer huge overheads from copying memory. In my experience this is the biggest cost -- in C you can also suffer this cost, but not as easily I'd say.
Virtual function calls are ever so slightly more expensive than normal functions. At the same time forced inline functions are cheaper than normal function calls. In both cases it is likely the cost of pushing/popping parameters from the stack that is more expensive. Worrying about function call overhead though should come quite late in the optimization process -- as it is rarely a significant problem.
Exceptions are costly at throw time (in GCC at least). But setting up catch statements and using RAII doesn't have a significant cost associated with it. This was by design in the GCC compiler (and others) so that truly only the exceptional cases are costly.
But to summarize: a good C++ programmer would not be able to make their code run faster simply by writing it in C.
measure! measure before thinking about optimizing, measure before applying optimization, measure after applying optimization, measure!
If you must run your code 1 nanosecond faster (because it's going to be used by 1000 people, 1000 times in the next 1000 days and that second is very important) anything goes.
Yes! it is worth ...
changing languages (C++ to C; Python to COBOL; Mathlab to Fortran; PHP to Lisp)
tweaking the compiler (enable/disable all the -f options)
use different libraries (even write your own)
etc
etc
What you must not forget is to measure!.
pmg nailed it. Just measure instead of global assumptions. Also think of it this way, compilers like gcc separate the front, middle, and back end. so the frontend fortran, c, c++, ada, etc ends up in the same internal middle language if you will that is what gets most of the optimization. Then that generic middle language is turned into assembler for the specific target, and there are target specific optimizations that occur. So the language may or may not induce more code from the front to middle when the languages differ greatly, but for C/C++ I would assume it is the same or very similar. Now the binary size is another story, the libraries that may get sucked into the binary for C only vs C++ even if it is only C syntax can/will vary. Doesnt necessarily affect execution performance but can bulk up the program file costing storage and transfer differences as well as memory requirements if the program loaded as a while into ram. Here again, just measure.
I also add to the measure comment compile to assembler and/or disassemble the output and compare the results of your different languages/compiler choices. This can/will supplement the timing differences you see when you measure.
The question has been answered to death, so I won't add to that.
Simply as a generic question, assuming you have measured, etc, and you have identified that a certain C++ (or other) code segment is not running at optimal speed (which generally means you have not used the right tool for the job); and you know you can get better performance by writing it in C, then yes, definitely, it is worth it.
There is a certain mindset that is common, trying to do everything from one tool (Java or SQL or C++). Not just Maslow's Hammer, but the actual belief that they can code a C construct in Java, etc. This leads to all kinds of performance problems. Architecture, as a true profession, is about placing code segments in the appropriate architectural location or platform. It is the correct combination of Java, SQL and C that will deliver performance. That produces an app that does not need to be re-visited; uneventful execution. In which case, it will not matter if or when C++ implements this constructors or that.
I am wondering if it is still worth with modern compilers and their optimizations to write some critical code in C instead of C++ to make it faster.
no. keep it readable. if your team prefers c++ or c, prefer that - especially if it is already functioning in production code (don't rewrite it without very good reasons).
I know C++ might lead to bad performance in case classes are copied while they could be passed by reference
then forbid copying and assigning
or when classes are created automatically by the compiler, typically with overloaded operators and many other similar cases
could you elaborate? if you are referring to templates, they don't have additional cost in runtime (although they can lead to additional exported symbols, resulting in a larger binary). in fact, using a template method can improve performance if (for example) a conversion would otherwise be necessary.
but for a good C++ developer who knows how to avoid all of this, is it still worth writing code in C to improve performance?
in my experience, an expert c++ developer can create a faster, more maintainable program.
you have to be selective about the language features that you use (and do not use). if you break c++ features down to the set available in c (e.g., remove exceptions, virtual function calls, rtti) then you're off to a good start. if you learn to use templates, metaprogramming, optimization techniques, avoid type aliasing (which becomes increasingly difficult or verbose in c), etc. then you should be on par or faster than c - with a program which is more easily maintained (since you are familiar with c++).
if you're comfortable using the features of c++, use c++. it has plenty of features (many of which have been added with speed/cost in mind), and can be written to be as fast as c (or faster).
with templates and metaprogramming, you could turn many runtime variables into compile-time constants for exceptional gains. sometimes that goes well into micro-optimization territory.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Many embedded engineers use c++, but some argue it's bad because it's "object oriented"?
Is it true that being object oriented makes it bad for embedded systems, and if so, why is that really the case?
Edit: Here's a quick reference for those who asked:
so we
prefer people not to use divide ..., malloc ..., or other object
oriented practice that carry large
penalty.
I guess the question is are objects considered heavyweight in the context of an embedded system? Some of the answers here suggest they are and some suggest they're not.
Whilst I'm not sure it answers your question, I can summarise the reasons my previous companies source code was pure C.
It's firstly worth summarising the situation:
we wanted to write a large amount of "core" code that would be highly portable across a large number of ARM embedded systems (mostly mid-range mobile phones; both smart phones and ones running RTOSs of various ages)
the platforms generally had a workable C compiler, though some for example didn't support floating point "double"s.
in some cases the platform had a reasonable implementation of the standard library, but in many cases it didn't.
a C++ compiler was not available on most platforms, and where it was available support for the C++ standard library, STL or exceptions was highly variable.
debuggers often weren't available (a serial port you could send debug printfs to was considered a luxury)
we always had access to a reasonable amount of memory, but often not to a reasonable malloc() implementation
Given that, we worked entirely in C, and even then only a restricted set of C 89. The resulting code was highly portable. We often used object orientated concepts though.
These days "embedded" is a very wide definition. It covers everything from 8 bit microprocessors with no RAM or C compilers upto what are essentially high end PCs (albeit not running Microsoft Windows) - I don't know where your project/company sits in that range.
Taking your quote at face value, dynamic memory allocation is completely separate concept from object-oriented software design, so it's outright false. You can have object-oriented design, and not use dynamic memory allocation.
In fact, you can do OO in C to an extent (that's what Linux kernel does). The real reason that many embedded developers don't like C++ is that it's very complex and it is hard to write straight-forward and predictable code in it. Linus has a good recent rant on why he does not like C++ (it's better and more reasoned than his old one, I promise). Probably most folks just don't articulate it very well.
What makes you say that C++ is Object Oriented? C++ is multiparadigm, and not all of the features that C++ provides are useful for the embedded market due to their overheads. (So... Just don't use those features! Problem solved!)
Object Oriented is great for embedded systems. It focuses a lot on encapsulation, data hiding, and code sharing. One can have Object Oriented embedded systems without division or dynamic memory allocation.
Division and dynamic memory allocation are enemies of embedded systems regardless of Object Oriented, Data Oriented or procedural programming. These concepts may or may not be used in the implementation of Object Oriented designs.
Object Oriented allows for a UART class to transmit instances of Message objects without knowing the content of the Message objects. A Message could be the base class and have several descendant classes.
The C++ language helps promote safe coding in embedded systems by allowing constructors, copy constructors, and destructors, which would only remembered in the highest disciplined C language embedded systems.
Exception handling is also a pain to get working in the C language. The C++ provides better facilities embedded into the language.
The C++ language provides templates for writing common code to handle different data types. A classic example is a ring buffer or circular queue. In the C language, one would have to use "pointers to void" so that any object could be passed. C++ offers a template so one can write a Circular_Queue class that works with different data types and has better compile-time type checking.
Inheritance allows for better code sharing. The shared code is factored into a base class and child classes can be created that share the same functionality; through inheritance.
The C language profides function pointers. The C++ languages provides facilities for function objects (function pointers with attributes).
Sorry, I just don't like those people who limit embedded systems to C language because of rumors and little knowledge and experience with C++.
Object-oriented design by itself isn't bad. The answer lies in your quote. Especially in real-time embedded systems, you want to make your code as light and efficient as possible. The things mentioned in your quote (objects, division, dynamic memory allocation) are relatively heavyweight and can usually be replaced with simpler alternatives (for eg. using bit-manipulation to approximate division, allocating memory on the stack or with static pools) to improve performance in time-critical systems.
Nothing about 'object-oriented' is bad for embedded systems. OO is just a way of thinking about software.
What's bad for embedded systems is that, in general, they have less sophisticated debuggers, and C++ does a lot of crazy stuff 'behind your back', so to speak. Those pieces of hard-to-get-access-to code will drive you nuts.
C++ was designed with the philosophy of don't pay for what you don't use. So apart from the lack of good embedded compilers, there's no real reason.
Maybe CFront could have compiled C++ into C, which has a myriad of compilers...
Edit: The Comeau compiler transforms C++ into plain C, so the no-compiler argument doesn't hold.
As others have noted, 'embedded' encompasses a broad and varied range of hardware/software options. But...
The quote you give will give microcontroller embedded types shivers. Dynamic allocation is a no-no, if you have an error, you crash the system in unpredictable ways. Divides are heavily discouraged since they take forever in execution time. Objects are only discouraged insofar as they tend to carry lot's of 'stuff' around with them, all that 'stuff' takes up space, and microcontrollers don't have any.
I think of embedded as being projects that are small and specific, you don't worry much about extensibility or portability. You write clean code in C that does only and exactly what you want your device to do, reliably. You choose one chip family so you can move your (almost the) same code among different hardware options with minor tweaks to the port your writing too or initialization of configuration fuses.
So, you don't need to define
4 wheeled Transportation
Car
Toyota
Since you're only working on Toyotas. And the difference in accelerations between a Camry and Corolla are stored as constants in a register.
As said above, it's what object-oriented / malloc / math do behind your back that carries a penalty - both in code size and CPU cycles which are usually in short supply in embedded.
As an example, including the sqrt() function in a loop added so much overhead in recursive calculations that we had to remove it and work a fast approximation around it, using a lookup table if I remember correctly.
By all means use any tools/langauges you like, but you need to at least be able to lift the lid and check just how much extra code is being generated behind your back.
Programming is always about using the right tool for the job. There are no pat answers, and that is especially true in the embedded world. If you want to become skilled in embedded development you will be just as intimately familier with C as you are with C++.
First, let's pick this apart:
so we prefer people not to use divide ..., malloc ..., or other object oriented practice that carry large penalty.
Division and malloc are not unique to object oriented programming, they are present in procedural languages too (and presumably functional, and whatever other paradigms you might think of).
Division and malloc can be a problem on an embedded system if the system has sufficiently limited resources, that much is true, but they will be a problem no matter what programming paradigm you use.
Onto the main issue "Is object orientation bad for embedded systems?".
Firstly, 'object orientation' is quite a broad spectrum. Some people have conflicting ideas about what it actually means. There's a minimalist definition where an object is essentially just a bundle of functions (or 'methods') and data, and there's a more 'purist' definition that also includes features like inheritance and polymorphism.
If you take the minimalist definition of OOP then no - OOP is not bad for embedded systems. It does depend on the language, but it's entirely possible for using objects to be just as cheap as not using objects (and possibly cheaper in some situations). In C++, an object (without virtual methods, which I'll get to in a moment) takes up no more memory than its individual fields would if they weren't part of an object. In C++, (the size of) an object is equal to the sum of (the size of) its parts.
However, if you take the 'puritan' view of OOP and insist on including inheritance and polymorphism then the answer is 'yes, it is bad'. Inheritance is perhaps less of a concern (depending on the language), but polymorphism via virtual methods is a definite memory chewer. virtual functions are usually implemented by maintaining a 'vtable' (a virtual method table) that stores pointers to the correct functions, and each object must store a pointer to its vtable to enable dynamic dispatch (the process of calling virtual functions) to work properly. There are circumstances in which inheritance can use more memory than solutions that don't require inheritance - typically when comparing inheritance to composition, composition sometimes uses less memory.
One last point, particularly for the case of C++ (since that's usually what people mean when they talk about using OOP on embedded systems). People often say that "C++ does strange things behind your back" - it does do some things without those things being immediately obvious when looking at the code, such as producing the vtables I mentioned earlier, however it doesn't do these things "behind your back" in an attempt to thwart you, it does these things because they are simply needed to implement the features being used. Overall there are very few detrimental things that happen 'behind the scenes', and the things it does aren't exactly arcane or mysterious, they're generally quite well known and they're things the programmer ought to be aware of when programming for an embedded system. If you don't know about them then you don't know your tools properly and you should research them some more.
Having said all that, remember that people are free to be selective with which language features they do and don't use. It makes absolute sense to avoid the more expensive features like virtual functions, but it doesn't make sense to forgo an entire language (like C++) simply because it has a few expensive entirely optional features (like virtual functions) - that's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
It is said that Blitz++ provides near-Fortran performance.
Does Fortran actually tend to be faster than regular C++ for equivalent tasks?
What about other HL languages of exceptional runtime performance? I've heard of a few languages suprassing C++ for certain tasks... Objective Caml, Java, D...
I guess GC can make much code faster, because it removes the need for excessive copying around the stack? (assuming the code is not written for performance)
I am asking out of curiosity -- I always assumed C++ is pretty much unbeatable barring expert ASM coding.
Fortran is faster and almost always better than C++ for purely numerical code. There are many reasons why Fortran is faster. It is the oldest compiled language (a lot of knowledge in optimizing compilers). It is still THE language for numerical computations, so many compiler vendors make a living of selling optimized compilers. There are also other, more technical reasons. Fortran (well, at least Fortran77) does not have pointers, and thus, does not have the aliasing problems, which plague the C/C++ languages in that domain. Many high performance libraries are still coded in Fortran, with a long (> 30 years) history. Neither C or C++ have any good array constructs (C is too low level, C++ has as many array libraries as compilers on the planet, which are all incompatible with each other, thus preventing a pool of well tested, fast code).
Whether fortran is faster than c++ is a matter of discussion. Some say yes, some say no; I won't go into that. It depends on the compiler, the architecture you're running it on, the implementation of the algorithm ... etc.
Where fortran does have a big advantage over C is the time it takes you to implement those algorithms. And that makes it extremely well suited for any kind of numerical computing. I'll state just a few obvious advantages over C:
1-based array indexing (tremendously helpful when implementing larger models, and you don't have to think about it, but just FORmula TRANslate
has a power operator (**) (God, whose idea was that a power function will do ? Instead of an operator?!)
it has, I'd say the best support for multidimensional arrays of all the languages in the current market (and it doesn't seem that's gonna change so soon) - A(1,2) just like in math
not to mention avoiding the loops - A=B*C multiplies the arrays (almost like matlab syntax with compiled speed)
it has parallelism features built into the language (check the new standard on this one)
very easily connectible with languages like C, python, so you can make your heavy duty calculations in fortran, while .. whatever ... in the language of your choice, if you feel so inclined
completely backward compatible (since whole F77 is a subset of F90) so you have whole century of coding at your disposal
very very portable (this might not work for some compiler extensions, but in general it works like a charm)
problem oriented solving community (since fortran users are usually not cs, but math, phy, engineers ... people with no programming, but rather problem solving experience whose knowledge about your problem can be very helpful)
Can't think of anything else off the top of my head right now, so this will have to do.
What Blitz++ is competing against is not so much the Fortran language, but the man-centuries of work going into Fortran math libraries. To some extent the language helps: an older language has had a lot more time to get optimizing compilers (and , let's face it, C++ is one of the most complex languages). On the other hand, high level C++ libraries like Blitz++ and uBLAS allows you to state your intentions more clearly than relatively low-level Fortran code, and allows for whole new classes of compile-time optimizations.
However, using any library effectively all the time requires developers to be well acquainted with the language, the library and the mathematics. You can usually get faster code by improving any one of the three...
FORTAN is typically faster than C++ for array processing because of the different ways the languages implement arrays - FORTRAN doesn't allow aliasing of array elements, whereas C++ does. This makes the FORTRAN compilers job easier. Also, FORTRAN has many very mature mathematical libraries which have been worked on for nearly 50 years - C++ has not been around that long!
This will depend a lot on the compiler, programmers, whether it has gc and can vary too much. If it is compiled directly to machine code then expect to have better performance than interpreted most of the time but there is a finite amount of optimization possible before you have asm speed anyway.
If someone said fortran was slightly faster would you code a new project in that anyway?
the thing with c++ is that it is very close to the hardware level. In fact, you can program at the hardware level (via assembly blocks). In general, c++ compilers do a pretty good job at optimisations (for a huge speed boost, enable "Link Time Code Generation" to allow the inlining of functions between different cpp files), but if you know the hardware and have the know-how, you can write a few functions in assembly that work even faster (though sometimes, you just can't beat the compiler).
You can also implement you're own memory managers (which is something a lot of other high level languages don't allow), thus you can customize them for your specific task (maybe most allocations will be 32 bytes or less, then you can just have a giant list of 32-byte buffers that you can allocate/deallocate in O(1) time). I believe that c++ CAN beat any other language, as long as you fully understand the compiler and the hardware that you are using. The majority of it comes down to what algorithms you use more than anything else.
You must be using some odd managed XML parser as you load this page then. :)
We continously profile code and the gain is consistently (and this is not naive C++, it is just modern C++ with boos). It consistensly paves any CLR implementation by at least 2x and often by 5x or more. A bit better than Java days when it was around 20x times faster but you can still find good instances and simply eliminate all the System.Object bloat and clearly beat it to a pulp.
One thing managed devs don't get is that the hardware architecture is against any scaling of VM and object root aproaches. You have to see it to believe it, hang on, fire up a browser and go to a 'thin' VM like Silverlight. You'll be schocked how slow and CPU hungry it is.
Two, kick of a database app for any performance, yes managed vs native db.
It's usually the algorithm not the language that determines the performance ballpark that you will end up in.
Within that ballpark, optimising compilers can usually produce better code than most assembly coders.
Premature optimisation is the root of all evil
This may be the "common knowledge" that everyone can parrot, but I submit that's probably because it's correct. I await concrete evidence to the contrary.
D can sometimes be faster than C++ in practical applications, largely because the presence of garbage collection helps avoid the overhead of RAII and reference counting when using smart pointers. For programs that allocate large amounts of small objects with non-trivial lifecycles, garbage collection can be faster than C++-style memory management. Also, D's builtin arrays allow the compiler to perform better optimizations in some cases than C++'s STL vector, which the compiler doesn't understand. Furthermore, D2 supports immutable data and pure function annotations, which recent versions of DMD2 optimize based on. Walter Bright, D's creator, wrote a JavaScript interpreter in both D and C++, and according to him, the D version is faster.
C# is much faster than C++ - in C# I can write an XML parser and data processor in a tenth the time it takes me to write it C++.
Oh, did you mean execution speed?
Even then, if you take the time from the first line of code written to the end of the first execution of the code, C# is still probably faster than C++.
This is a very interesting article about converting a C++ program to C# and the effort required to make the C++ faster than the C#.
So, if you take development speed into account, almost anything beats C++.
OK, to address tht OP's runtime only performance requirement: It's not the langauge, it's the implementation of the language that determines the runtime performance. I could write a C++ compiler that produces the slowest code imaginable, but it's still C++. It is also theoretically possible to write a compiler for Java that targets IA32 instructions rather than the Java VM byte codes, giving a runtime speed boost.
The performance of your code will depend on the fit between the strengths of the language and the requirements of the code. For example, a program that does lots of memory allocation / deallocation will perform badly in a naive C++ program (i.e. use the default memory allocator) since the C++ memory allocation strategy is too generalised, whereas C#'s GC based allocator can perform better (as the above link shows). String manipulation is slow in C++ but quick in languages like php, perl, etc.
It all depends on the compiler, take for example the Stalin Scheme compiler, it beats almost all languages in the Debian micro benchmark suite, but do they mention anything about compile times?
No, I suspect (I have not used Stalin before) compiling for benchmarks (iow all optimizations at maximum effort levels) takes a jolly long time for anything but the smallest pieces of code.
if the code is not written for performance then C# is faster than C++.
A necessary disclaimer: All benchmarks are evil.
Here's benchmarks that in favour of C++.
The above two links show that we can find cases where C++ is faster than C# and vice versa.
Performance of a compiled language is a useless concept: What's important is the quality of the compiler, ie what optimizations it is able to apply. For example, often - but not always - the Intel C++ compiler produces better performing code than g++. So how do you measure the performance of C++?
Where language semantics come in is how easy it is for the programmer to get the compiler to create optimal output. For example, it's often easier to parallelize Fortran code than C code, which is why Fortran is still heavily used for high-performance computation (eg climate simulations).
As the question and some of the answers mentioned assembler: the same is true here, it's just another compiled language and thus not inherently 'faster'. The difference between assembler and other languages is that the programmer - who ideally has absolute knowledge about the program - is responsible for all of the optimizations instead of delegating some of them to the 'dumb' compiler.
Eg function calls in assembler may use registers to pass arguments and don't need to create unnecessary stack frames, but a good compiler can do this as well (think inlining or fastcall). The downside of using assembler is that better performing algorithms are harder to implement (think linear search vs. binary seach, hashtable lookup, ...).
Doing much better than C++ is mostly going to be about making the compiler understand what the programmer means. An example of this might be an instance where a compiler of any language infers that a region of code is independent of its inputs and just computes the result value at compile time.
Another example of this is how C# produces some very high performance code simply because the compiler knows what particular incantations 'mean' and can cleverly use the implementation that produces the highest performance, where a transliteration of the same program into C++ results in needless alloc/delete cycles (hidden by templates) because the compiler is handling the general case instead of the particular case this piece of code is giving.
A final example might be in the Brook/Cuda adaptations of C designed for exotic hardware that isn't so exotic anymore. The language supports the exact primitives (kernel functions) that map to the non von-neuman hardware being compiled for.
Is that why you are using a managed browser? Because it is faster. Or managed OS because it is faster. Nah, hang on, it is the SQL database.. Wait, it must be the game you are playing. Stop, there must be a piece of numerical code Java adn Csharp frankly are useless with. BTW, you have to check what your VM is written it to slag the root language and say it is slow.
What a misconecption, but hey show me a fast managed app so we can all have a laugh. VS? OpenOffice?
Ahh... The good old question - which compiler makes faster code?
It only matters in code that actually spends much time at the bottom of the call stack, i.e. hot spots that don't contain function calls, such as matrix inversion, etc.
(Implied by 1) It only matters in code the compiler actually sees. If your program counter spends all its time in 3rd-party libraries you don't build, it doesn't matter.
In code where it does matter, it all comes down to which compiler makes better ASM, and that's largely a function of how smartly or stupidly the source code is written.
With all these variables, it's hard to distinguish between good compilers.
However, as was said, if you've got a lot of Fortran code to compile, don't re-write it.
I still feel C++ offers some things that can't be beaten. It's not my intention to start a flame war here, please, if you have strong opinions about not liking C++ don't vent them here. I'm interested in hearing from C++ gurus about why they stick with it.
I'm particularly interested in aspects of C++ that are little known, or underutilised.
RAII / deterministic finalization. No, garbage collection is not just as good when you're dealing with a scarce, shared resource.
Unfettered access to OS APIs.
I have stayed with C++ as it is still the highest performing general purpose language for applications that need to combine efficiency and complexity. As an example, I write real time surface modelling software for hand-held devices for the surveying industry. Given the limited resources, Java, C#, etc... just don't provide the necessary performance characteristics, whereas lower level languages like C are much slower to develop in given the weaker abstraction characteristics. The range of levels of abstraction available to a C++ developer is huge, at one extreme I can be overloading arithmetic operators such that I can say something like MaterialVolume = DesignSurface - GroundSurface while at the same time running a number of different heaps to manage the memory most efficiently for my app on a specific device. Combine this with a wealth of freely available source for solving pretty much any common problem, and you have one heck of a powerful development language.
Is C++ still the optimal development solution for most problems in most domains? Probably not, though at a pinch it can still be used for most of them. Is it still the best solution for efficient development of high performance applications? IMHO without a doubt.
Shooting oneself in the foot.
No other language offers such a creative array of tools. Pointers, multiple inheritance, templates, operator overloading and a preprocessor.
A wonderfully powerful language that also provides abundant opportunities for foot shooting.
Edit: I apologize if my lame attempt at humor has offended some. I consider C++ to be the most powerful language that I have ever used -- with abilities to code at the assembly language level when desired, and at a high level of abstraction when desired. C++ has been my primary language since the early '90s.
My answer was based on years of experience of shooting myself in the foot. At least C++ allows me to do so elegantly.
Deterministic object destruction leads to some magnificent design patterns. For instance, while RAII is not as general a technique as garbage collection, it leads to some impressive capabilities which you cannot get with GC.
C++ is also unique in that it has a Turing-complete preprocessor. This allows you to prefer (as in the opposite of defer) a lot of code tasks to compile time instead of run time. For instance, in real code you might have an assert() statement to test for a never-happen. The reality is that it will sooner or later happen... and happen at 3:00am when you're on vacation. The C++ preprocessor assert does the same test at compile time. Compile-time asserts fail between 8:00am and 5:00pm while you're sitting in front of the computer watching the code build; run-time asserts fail at 3:00am when you're asleep in Hawai'i. It's pretty easy to see the win there.
In most languages, strategy patterns are done at run-time and throw exceptions in the event of a type mismatch. In C++, strategies can be done at compile-time through the preprocessor facility and can be guaranteed typesafe.
Write inline assembly (MMX, SSE, etc.).
Deterministic object destruction. I.e. real destructors. Makes managing scarce resources easier. Allows for RAII.
Easier access to structured binary data. It's easier to cast a memory region as a struct than to parse it and copy each value into a struct.
Multiple inheritance. Not everything can be done with interfaces. Sometimes you want to inherit actual functionality too.
I think i'm just going to praise C++ for its ability to use templates to catch expressions and execute it lazily when it's needed. For those not knowing what this is about, here is an example.
Template mixins provide reuse that I haven't seen elsewhere. With them you can build up a large object with lots of behaviour as though you had written the whole thing by hand. But all these small aspects of its functionality can be reused, it's particularly great for implementing parts of an interface (or the whole thing), where you are implementing a number of interfaces. The resulting object is lightning-fast because it's all inlined.
Speed may not matter in many cases, but when you're writing component software, and users may combine components in unthought-of complicated ways to do things, the speed of inlining and C++ seems to allow much more complex structures to be created.
Absolute control over the memory layout, alignment, and access when you need it. If you're careful enough you can write some very cache-friendly programs. For multi-processor programs, you can also eliminate a lot of slow downs from cache coherence mechanisms.
(Okay, you can do this in C, assembly, and probably Fortran too. But C++ lets you write the rest of your program at a higher level.)
This will probably not be a popular answer, but I think what sets C++ apart are its compile-time capabilities, e.g. templates and #define. You can do all sorts of text manipulation on your program using these features, much of which has been abandoned in later languages in the name of simplicity. To me that's way more important than any low-level bit fiddling that's supposedly easier or faster in C++.
C#, for instance, doesn't have a real macro facility. You can't #include another file directly into the source, or use #define to manipulate the program as text. Think about any time you had to mechanically type repetitive code and you knew there was a better way. You may even have written a program to generate code for you. Well, the C++ preprocessor automates all of these things.
The "generics" facility in C# is similarly limited compared to C++ templates. C++ lets you apply the dot operator to a template type T blindly, calling (for example) methods that may not exist, and checks-for-correctness are only applied once the template is actually applied to a specific class. When that happens, if all the assumptions you made about T actually hold, then your code will compile. C# doesn't allow this... type "T" basically has to be dealt with as an Object, i.e. using only the lowest common denominator of operations available to everything (assignment, GetHashCode(), Equals()).
C# has done away with the preprocessor, and real generics, in the name of simplicity. Unfortunately, when I use C#, I find myself reaching for substitutes for these C++ constructs, which are inevitably more bloated and layered than the C++ approach. For example, I have seen programmers work around the absence of #include in several bloated ways: dynamically linking to external assemblies, re-defining constants in several locations (one file per project) or selecting constants from a database, etc.
As Ms. Crabapple from The Simpson's once said, this is "pretty lame, Milhouse."
In terms of Computer Science, these compile-time features of C++ enable things like call-by-name parameter passing, which is known to be more powerful than call-by-value and call-by-reference.
Again, this is perhaps not the popular answer- any introductory C++ text will warn you off of #define, for example. But having worked with a wide variety of languages over many years, and having given consideration to the theory behind all of this, I think that many people are giving bad advice. This seems especially to be the case in the diluted sub-field known as "IT."
Passing POD structures across processes with minimum overhead. In other words, it allows us to easily handle blobs of binary data.
C# and Java force you to put your 'main()' function in a class. I find that weird, because it dilutes the meaning of a class.
To me, a class is a category of objects in your problem domain. A program is not such an object. So there should never be a class called 'Program' in your program. This would be equivalent to a mathematical proof using a symbol to notate itself -- the proof -- alongside symbols representing mathematical objects. It'll be just weird and inconsistent.
Fortunately, unlike C# and Java, C++ allows global functions. That lets your main() function to exist outside. Therefore C++ offers a simpler, more consistent and perhaps truer implementation of the the object-oriented idiom. Hence, this is one thing C++ can do, but C# and Java cannot.
I think that operator overloading is a quite nice feature. Of course it can be very much abused (like in Boost lambda).
Tight control over system resources (esp. memory) while offering powerful abstraction mechanisms optionally. The only language I know of that can come close to C++ in this regard is Ada.
C++ provides complete control over memory and as result a makes the the flow of program execution much more predictable.
Not only can you say precisely at what time allocations and deallocations of memory occurs, you can define you own heaps, have multiple heaps for different purposes and say precisely where in memory data is allocated to. This is frequently useful when programming on embedded/real time systems, such as games consoles, cell phones, mp3 players, etc..., which:
have strict upper limits on memory that is easy to reach (constrast with a PC which just gets slower as you run out of physical memory)
frequently have non homogeneous memory layout. You may want to allocate objects of one type in one piece of physical memory, and objects of another type in another piece.
have real time programming constraints. Unexpectedly calling the garbage collector at the wrong time can be disastrous.
AFAIK, C and C++ are the only sensible option for doing this kind of thing.
Well to be quite honest, you can do just about anything if your willing to write enough code.
So to answer your question, no, there is nothing you can't do in another language that C++ can't do. It's just how much patience do you have and are you willing to devote the long sleepless nights to get it to work?
There are things that C++ wrappers make it easy to do (because they can read the header files), like Office development. But again, it's because someone wrote lots of code to "wrap" it for you in an RCW or "Runtime Callable Wrapper"
EDIT: You also realize this is a loaded question.