>>[snip]
>>>If I'm all wrong here, some expert jump in and tell me so, but my understanding is that C, being the base level would be the fastest. Most operating system are written in C. Almost all functionality in C is held in the C libraries. For example, if I wanted to print "Hello World" in C, I would call the print library passing it the string "Hello World". C++ is written in C. It provides the classes
>>[snip]
>>
>>As far as I know, printing 'Hello world' with C is slower than printing it in C++. I think your idea that C++ is written in C is wrong. Maybe portions are written in C, but other portions are likely written in assembler and use processor specific features that C isn't allowed to use because of the C-standard.
>
>Hi, Peter, Leland (Jim, also).
>
>Just a few issues from an ex-Asm/C/C++ developer (I was so bad at them that I quited and got into Fox): 8-)
>
>In the best recursive tradition, C compilers are usually written in C, while C++ compilers are usually written in C++. In both cases, you can include inline code (assembler code snippets), so it is always actually a mix.

May it be that portions of C are written in C, that can't be true for the whole product. The core is written in assembler. And I guess the core of C++ is written in C and assembler.
But my main point is that certain assembler instructions/constructions are not allowed in C, while they are ok in C++. The C-standard forbids those instructions/constructions since they're regarded as processor specific. The consequence is that the team that developed C++ could write a language that does certain jobs much faster than C will ever be able to.

[snip]