Are we lucky that C is as fast as it is?

>>8308416
C isn't fast.

>>8308416
C++ is faster

>>8308475
gold

File: 1418584633659.jpg (658KB, 1200x806px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 1200x806px

>>8308475
Technically C++ is just as fast as C. It's just that C++ code typically has more type information available at compile time so compilers can optimize the code better.

Python is the fastest there is.

Wouldn't like the sun be hotter if c was bigger because each individual photon would be moving faster thus carrying more linear momentum? Or is mr einstein about to cuck me with s.relativity?

what if c was 10 miles per hour?

>>8308475
>>8308487
assembly is faster

>>8308487
Electrons dont travel at C within any wire

>>8308891
Depend on the scale of the project. There is no way you can keep in mind a whole assembly project, on the other end it's easy to remember well enough a 50k lines c++ project. This mean that adding new stuff to c++ usually does not lead to decrement in performance while it usually mean in assembly. On the other hand one can usually get great improvement by writing in assembly some specialised routines in a c++ project.

As a rule of thumb you will get better performance in a large project with c++ than c or assembly.

>>8308487
You're a fucking brainlet if you can't get A++

>>8308416
C isn't always faster than C++ and Rust. They all are nearly as fast as high-level programming language can be. The small differences are just matter of compiler optimalizations.

C compared to the scale of the universe is somehow 'fast'

>>8308485
GTFO comp sci fags