Global vs. Member functions

I've been playing around with c++ lately and wondered why there were so many global functions. Then I started thinking about programming in c# and how member functions are stored, so I guess my question is if I have a:

public class Foo {
    public void 开发者_如何学运维Bar() { ... }
}

and then I do something silly like adding 1,000,000 Foo's to a list; does this mean I have 1,000,000 Foo objects sitting in memory each with there own Bar() function? Or does something much more clever happen?

Thanks.

Nope, there is only one instance. All instances of a class point to an object that contains all the instance methods that take an implicit first parameter affectionately called this. When you invoke an instance method on an instance the this pointer for that instance is passed as the first parameter to that method. That is how the method knows all the instance fields and properties for that instance.

For details see CLR via C#.

This is, of course, complicated by virtual methods. CLR via C# will spell out the distinction for you and is highly recommended if you are interested in this subject. Either way, there is still only one instance of each instance method. The issue is just how these methods are resolved.

An instance method is simply a static method with a hidden this parameter.

(virtual methods are a little more complicated)

In C++ a member function doesn't normally require any per-object storage (an exception - virtual functions - is discussed in the next paragraph). Normally, at each point where the function is used the compiler generates CPU-specific machine code to directly call that function, and for inline functions the call may be avoided and the function's affect may be optimally integrated into the caller's code (which can be ~10x faster for small functions such as "getters and setters" that simply read or write one member variable).

For those classes that have one or more virtual functions, each object will have one extra pointer to a per-class table of function pointers and other information. Thus, each object grows by the size of a pointer - typically 4 or 8 bytes.

Addressing your original observation: C++ has more non-member functions (usually in the std namespace), but a namespace serves this purpose better than a class anyway. Indeed, namespaces are effectively logical interfaces for "static" functions and data that can span many "physical" header files. Why should the logical API of a program be compromised by considerations related to physical files and their implications to build times, file-modification-timestamp triggered make tools etc? In trivial cases where the namespace is in one header, C++ could use a class or struct to scope the same declarations, but that's less convenient as it prevents the use of namespace aliases, using namespaces, and Koenig lookup for implicitly searching namespaces matching a function arguments' namespaces - forcing very explicit prefixing at every point of use. It also gives the false impression that the user is intended to instantiate an object from the content.