Let me help you Elysia:
- "Because C can be faster", said Epy
- "Tests have shown that C++ can be faster than C too, so that argument holds no weight.", retorted Elysia
He says can be, you say can be not. Which is implied when one says "can be". But other than giving you a medal for stating the obvious, what exactly did you want to say with that? That the makers of CUDA (an highly performant and optimized library) decided on purpose to program it in a slower C language? Or that maybe C++ wasn't the best option performance-wise for a low-level API?
- Epy said, "Can be, but C ends up being faster more than 50% of the time.
The Computer Language Benchmarks Game has always been my standard."
- Elysia replied, "That's a load of nonsense. It all depends on how you write your code, your compiler and your CPU."
He says half of the time it is faster, you says it all depends. So, here is your second medal for mastering the obvious. But again, what do you mean? You mean to say that if the CUDA developers had used C++ correctly with the correct compiler and the correct CPU they would have created an API that would be faster than developed in C under the same conditions (correct use of the language, correct compiler and correct CPU)?
(And how the heck a correct CPU and correct compiler fits in a cross-platform library? But, whatever)