Where are the vtables coming from if you use no inheritance and no memory allocation?
Even in an embedded context you have classes and destructors, operator overloading and templates. You can still make data structures that exist in flat constrained memory.
Even demo scene people use C++ and windows binaries can start at 1KB. Classes, operator overloading and destructors are all still useful. There is no reason there has to be more overhead than C.
That said, that's a very good point. Maybe they'd even use that fmt library?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
You said this:
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't use C++ in that situation anyway, so I don't really see your point.
People have pointed out to you why you both can and would use C++, especially in place of C.
Let me coin a new term to help me in that task: the "swarm gallop", which would be that technique applied by a group of people, instead of just one person (somewhat like a DDOS).
Thank you.
On very old archs (16bits, 8bits), there was no OO, because the code could not be complex enough to warrant it. It could not be complex because there wasn't room enough.
That being said, there are templated libraries (like fmt...) which may result in zero overhead in code size, so if the thread OP is using C++, then surely he could also use that library...
modern compilers are way better about de-duplicating "different types but same instruction" template specializations so it's less of an issue than you may expect , especially if you're coming with template specialization generation from the mid/late 2000's.
But anyway, the point that I am refuting is the use of C++ to write programs for such an extremely constrained runtime environnement, and at the same time refuse to use this library (which is template based afaik).
Have fun,
"Rich Code for Tiny Computers: A Simple Commodore 64 Game in C++17"