printf()和cout在c++中的区别是什么?
当前回答
来自c++常见问题解答:
[15.1] Why should I use <iostream> instead of the traditional <cstdio>? Increase type safety, reduce errors, allow extensibility, and provide inheritability. printf() is arguably not broken, and scanf() is perhaps livable despite being error prone, however both are limited with respect to what C++ I/O can do. C++ I/O (using << and >>) is, relative to C (using printf() and scanf()): More type-safe: With <iostream>, the type of object being I/O'd is known statically by the compiler. In contrast, <cstdio> uses "%" fields to figure out the types dynamically. Less error prone: With <iostream>, there are no redundant "%" tokens that have to be consistent with the actual objects being I/O'd. Removing redundancy removes a class of errors. Extensible: The C++ <iostream> mechanism allows new user-defined types to be I/O'd without breaking existing code. Imagine the chaos if everyone was simultaneously adding new incompatible "%" fields to printf() and scanf()?! Inheritable: The C++ <iostream> mechanism is built from real classes such as std::ostream and std::istream. Unlike <cstdio>'s FILE*, these are real classes and hence inheritable. This means you can have other user-defined things that look and act like streams, yet that do whatever strange and wonderful things you want. You automatically get to use the zillions of lines of I/O code written by users you don't even know, and they don't need to know about your "extended stream" class.
另一方面,printf要快得多,因此在非常特定和有限的情况下,可以优先使用它而不是cout。总是先做侧写。(例如,参见http://programming-designs.com/2009/02/c-speed-test-part-2-printf-vs-cout/)
其他回答
当然,你可以把“something”写得更好一点,以保持维护:
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
using namespace std;
class Something
{
public:
Something(int x, int y, int z) : a(x), b(y), c(z) { }
int a;
int b;
int c;
friend ostream& operator<<(ostream&, const Something&);
void print() const { printf("%i, %i, %i\n", a, b, c); }
};
ostream& operator<<(ostream& o, const Something& s)
{
o << s.a << ", " << s.b << ", " << s.c;
return o;
}
int main(void)
{
Something s(3, 2, 1);
// Output with printf
s.print(); // Simple as well, isn't it?
// Output with cout
cout << s << endl;
return 0;
}
还有一个cout vs. printf的扩展测试,如果有人想做更多的测试,添加了一个'double'的测试(Visual Studio 2008,可执行文件的发布版本):
#include <stdio.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <ctime>
class TimedSection {
char const *d_name;
//timespec d_start;
clock_t d_start;
public:
TimedSection(char const *name) :
d_name(name)
{
//clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &d_start);
d_start = clock();
}
~TimedSection() {
clock_t end;
//clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &end);
end = clock();
double duration = /*1e3 * (end.tv_sec - d_start.tv_sec) +
1e-6 * (end.tv_nsec - d_start.tv_nsec);
*/
(double) (end - d_start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
std::cerr << d_name << '\t' << std::fixed << duration * 1000.0 << " ms\n";
}
};
int main() {
const int iters = 1000000;
char const *text = "01234567890123456789";
{
TimedSection s("cout with only endl");
for (int i = 0; i < iters; ++i)
std::cout << std::endl;
}
{
TimedSection s("cout with only '\\n'");
for (int i = 0; i < iters; ++i)
std::cout << '\n';
}
{
TimedSection s("printf with only '\\n'");
for (int i = 0; i < iters; ++i)
printf("\n");
}
{
TimedSection s("cout with string constant and endl");
for (int i = 0; i < iters; ++i)
std::cout << "01234567890123456789" << std::endl;
}
{
TimedSection s("cout with string constant and '\\n'");
for (int i = 0; i < iters; ++i)
std::cout << "01234567890123456789\n";
}
{
TimedSection s("printf with string constant and '\\n'");
for (int i = 0; i < iters; ++i)
printf("01234567890123456789\n");
}
{
TimedSection s("cout with some stuff and endl");
for (int i = 0; i < iters; ++i)
std::cout << text << "01234567890123456789" << i << std::endl;
}
{
TimedSection s("cout with some stuff and '\\n'");
for (int i = 0; i < iters; ++i)
std::cout << text << "01234567890123456789" << i << '\n';
}
{
TimedSection s("printf with some stuff and '\\n'");
for (int i = 0; i < iters; ++i)
printf("%s01234567890123456789%i\n", text, i);
}
{
TimedSection s("cout with formatted double (width & precision once)");
std::cout << std::fixed << std::scientific << std::right << std::showpoint;
std::cout.width(8);
for (int i = 0; i < iters; ++i)
std::cout << text << 8.315 << i << '\n';
}
{
TimedSection s("cout with formatted double (width & precision on each call)");
std::cout << std::fixed << std::scientific << std::right << std::showpoint;
for (int i = 0; i < iters; ++i)
{ std::cout.width(8);
std::cout.precision(3);
std::cout << text << 8.315 << i << '\n';
}
}
{
TimedSection s("printf with formatted double");
for (int i = 0; i < iters; ++i)
printf("%8.3f%i\n", 8.315, i);
}
}
结果是:
cout with only endl 6453.000000 ms
cout with only '\n' 125.000000 ms
printf with only '\n' 156.000000 ms
cout with string constant and endl 6937.000000 ms
cout with string constant and '\n' 1391.000000 ms
printf with string constant and '\n' 3391.000000 ms
cout with some stuff and endl 9672.000000 ms
cout with some stuff and '\n' 7296.000000 ms
printf with some stuff and '\n' 12235.000000 ms
cout with formatted double (width & precision once) 7906.000000 ms
cout with formatted double (width & precision on each call) 9141.000000 ms
printf with formatted double 3312.000000 ms
cout<< "Hello";
printf("%s", "Hello");
两者都用于打印值。它们有完全不同的语法。c++两者都有,C 只有printf。
TL;DR:在相信在线随机评论之前,一定要自己做研究,考虑生成的机器代码的大小、性能、可读性和编码时间,包括这一条。
我不是专家。我碰巧听到两个同事在讨论如何避免在嵌入式系统中使用c++,因为会导致性能问题。有趣的是,我基于一个真实的项目任务做了一个基准测试。
在该任务中,我们必须向RAM写入一些配置。喜欢的东西:
咖啡=热 糖=没有 牛奶=乳房 mac = AA: BB: CC:弟弟:EE: FF
这是我的基准测试程序(是的,我知道OP询问printf(),而不是fprintf()。试着捕捉本质,顺便说一下,OP的链接指向fprintf()。)
C程序:
char coffee[10], sugar[10], milk[10];
unsigned char mac[6];
/* Initialize those things here. */
FILE * f = fopen("a.txt", "wt");
fprintf(f, "coffee=%s\nsugar=%s\nmilk=%s\nmac=%02X:%02X:%02X:%02X:%02X:%02X\n", coffee, sugar, milk, mac[0], mac[1],mac[2],mac[3],mac[4],mac[5]);
fclose(f);
c++程序:
//Everything else is identical except:
std::ofstream f("a.txt", std::ios::out);
f << "coffee=" << coffee << "\n";
f << "sugar=" << sugar << "\n";
f << "milk=" << milk << "\n";
f << "mac=" << (int)mac[0] << ":"
<< (int)mac[1] << ":"
<< (int)mac[2] << ":"
<< (int)mac[3] << ":"
<< (int)mac[4] << ":"
<< (int)mac[5] << endl;
f.close();
我尽了最大努力打磨它们,然后把它们都绕了10万次。以下是调查结果:
C程序:
real 0m 8.01s
user 0m 2.37s
sys 0m 5.58s
c++程序:
real 0m 6.07s
user 0m 3.18s
sys 0m 2.84s
目标文件大小:
C - 2,092 bytes
C++ - 3,272 bytes
结论:在我非常特定的平台上,使用非常特定的处理器,运行非常特定版本的Linux内核,运行一个非常特定版本的GCC编译的程序,以完成一个非常特定的任务,我会说c++方法更适合,因为它运行得更快,可读性更好。另一方面,C提供了小的内存占用,在我看来,这几乎没有什么意义,因为程序大小不是我们所关心的。
记住,YMMV。
更多的差异: "printf"返回一个整数值(等于打印的字符数),"cout"不返回任何东西
And.
Cout << "y = " << 7;不是原子的。
Printf ("%s = %d", "y", 7);是原子的。
Cout执行类型检查,printf不执行。
iostream中没有% d的等价物
我想说,printf的可扩展性不足是不完全正确的: 在C语言中,它是真的。但是在C语言中,没有真正的类。 在c++中,可以重载强制转换操作符,因此,重载char*操作符并像这样使用printf:
Foo bar;
...;
printf("%s",bar);
可以是可能的,如果Foo重载好的操作符。或者你有一个好方法。简而言之,printf对我来说和cout一样具有可扩展性。
我可以看到c++流的技术参数(一般来说…不仅是cout.)是:
类型安全。(顺便说一下,如果我想打印一个'\n',我使用putchar('\n')…我不会用核弹杀死一只昆虫。) 更容易学。(不需要学习“复杂的”参数,只需使用<<和>>操作符) 本机使用std::string(对于printf有std::string::c_str(),但对于scanf?)
对于printf,我看到:
更容易,或至少更短(就书写的字符而言)复杂的格式。对我来说,可读性更强(我猜是品味问题)。 更好地控制函数所生成的内容(返回写入了多少字符并且有%n格式化程序:"Nothing printing . "参数必须是一个指向有符号整型的指针,其中存储到目前为止写入的字符数。”(from printf - c++ Reference) 更好的调试可能性。原因和上一个论点一样。
我个人倾向于使用printf(和scanf)函数,主要是因为我喜欢短行,而且我认为打印文本时的打字问题并不难避免。 我唯一对c风格函数感到遗憾的是std::string不受支持。在将其交给printf之前,我们必须通过一个char*(如果我们想读,则使用std::string::c_str(),但如何写?)