>Have you ever been to competitions?
Yes, and I adjust my code accordingly to conform to the rules. However, this is quite irrelevant to your faulty advice because 1) you're just plain wrong, and 2) most of the time, one is not writing code for a competition.

>I know that cin and cout ARE slower.
It depends on what you're testing. Obviously you aren't aware that cin and cout are fully functional objects with a great deal more power and flexibility than scanf and printf. If all you're doing is printing strings then I would expect a naive test to show printf to be faster. However, and this relies heavily on the quality of the implementation, on modern compilers with comparison code written by someone objective and knowledgeable, you won't see much difference in speed.

>You want proof, here it is.
Heh, what are you doing, timing it with a stopwatch? Give me your profiler's output, add some timing framework, or don't even waste my time with such a silly test. Oh, and if you're trying to prove something, give me details on your compiler and system.

Let's try this one instead. It's rough, and not entirely portable, but it should give you approximate times for your implementation. Mine shows comparable speeds where the difference varies between printf and cout, and the difference is negligable. That kind of flies in the face of your assertion, doesn't it?

Help with Code Tags

C++ Syntax (Toggle Plain Text)

#include <iostream>
#include <cstdio>
#include <ctime>
 
int main()
{
  std::clock_t start1, start2;
  double diff1, diff2;
 
  start1 = std::clock();
  for ( int i = 0; i < 100000; i++ )
    std::cout<<"a";
  diff1 = ( std::clock() - start1 ) / (double)CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
 
  start2 = std::clock();
  for ( int i = 0; i < 100000; i++ )
    printf ( "a" );
  diff2 = ( std::clock() - start2 ) / (double)CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
 
  std::cout<<"cout:   "<< diff1 <<'\n'
    <<"printf: "<< diff2 <<'\n';
}

#include <iostream> #include <cstdio> #include <ctime> int main() { std::clock_t start1, start2; double diff1, diff2; start1 = std::clock(); for ( int i = 0; i < 100000; i++ ) std::cout<<"a"; diff1 = ( std::clock() - start1 ) / (double)CLOCKS_PER_SEC; start2 = std::clock(); for ( int i = 0; i < 100000; i++ ) printf ( "a" ); diff2 = ( std::clock() - start2 ) / (double)CLOCKS_PER_SEC; std::cout<<"cout: "<< diff1 <<'\n' <<"printf: "<< diff2 <<'\n'; }

>And do you know why?
Yes, I do. That makes one of us. :rolleyes:

>It is because cin and cout everytime have to get the type of the variable you are sending to them
When making a joke, it's customary to add the appropriate smiley. Otherwise I'd be inclined to think that you're spouting nonsense on a subject that you clearly know very little about. My only conclusion is that you're trying to be smart and failing miserably because you seem to be talking to someone who knows way more about C++ than you do.

>and scanf() and printf() from their prototype know what kind of variables to expect.
And in what way do you think that the runtime type selection from a format string with scanf/printf is faster than selecting an overloaded function at compile time?

And in what way do you think that the runtime type selection from a format string with scanf/printf is faster than selecting an overloaded function at compile time?

Oh, and if you're trying to prove something, give me details on your compiler and system.

Heh, what are you doing, timing it with a stopwatch?