473,883 Members | 1,708 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

why still use C?

no this is no trollposting and please don't get it wrong but iam very
curious why people still use C instead of other languages especially C++.

i heard people say C++ is slower than C but i can't believe that. in pieces
of the application where speed really matters you can still use "normal"
functions or even static methods which is basically the same.

in C there arent the simplest things present like constants, each struct and
enum have to be prefixed with "struct" and "enum". iam sure there is much
more.

i don't get it why people program in C and faking OOP features(functi on
pointers in structs..) instead of using C++. are they simply masochists or
is there a logical reason?

i feel C has to benefit against C++.

--
cody

[Freeware, Games and Humor]
www.deutronium.de.vu || www.deutronium.tk
--
comp.lang.c.mod erated - moderation address: cl**@plethora.n et
Nov 13 '05
687 23872
In article <bm**********@g lue.ucr.edu>, th*@cs.ucr.edu wrote:
C and C++ have a relatively large semantic intersection, i.e., set of
programs to which C and C++ attach identical behavior. It's my
impession that the intersecton includes the majority of actual C
programs.


I think the majority of actual C programs will not compile as C++
programs at all; if the programmer never heard of C++ then it is just
too easy to have "new", "class" or "template" as an identifier.

However, the majority of actual C programs can be changed with little
effort into source code that has identical behavior as C and C++
programs. The most annoying difference is having to cast the result of
malloc in C++, which is considered bad practice in C and necessary in
C++.
Nov 13 '05 #261
th*@cs.ucr.edu wrote:
In comp.std.c j <ja**********@b ellsouth.net> wrote:
[...]
+ Now inorder for C to be a subset of C++, you would be able to compile _any_
+ C program with a C++ compiler. This can't be done, because C is not a subset
+ of C++, and that is because C++ is not a superset of C. It is a
+ ``derivative'' of C. Nothing more and nothing less.
Correct.
C and C++ have a relatively large semantic intersection, i.e., set of
programs to which C and C++ attach identical behavior. It's my
impession that the intersecton includes the majority of actual C
programs.


It may be your impression, but if it would be like that in Reality[tm],
the majority of actual C programs would be bad C programs.
(Well, maybe they _are_, but that's not my point.)

If you don't believe this, feed some production level C code to a C++
compiler of your choice, but be prepared to face an army of nasal
demons. =%O

Regards
--
Irrwahn
(ir*******@free net.de)
Nov 13 '05 #262
Christian Bau wrote:
[snip] However, the majority of actual C programs can be changed with little
effort into source code that has identical behavior as C and C++
programs. The most annoying difference is having to cast the result of
malloc in C++, which is considered bad practice in C and necessary in
C++.


Why is it considered "bad practice"? I know it is frowned upon
sometimes, but I fail to see the rationale for that.

One advantage of casting malloc() results is that, like you say, one has
a fighting chance of getting a clean (error/warning-less) compile using
C++ in addition to getting a clean compile in C.

For me, compiling a piece of code with as many compilers as I can get my
hands on (with maximum warning levels) has proven to be a great way of
catching problems; different compilers give different warnings.

Having one's C program compilable by a C++-compiler also helps, since
this can sometimes flag potential problems in the C code that are not
noticed by a C compiler.

Best regards,

Sidney Cadot

Nov 13 '05 #263
Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw. nl> wrote:
Christian Bau wrote:
[snip]
However, the majority of actual C programs can be changed with little
effort into source code that has identical behavior as C and C++
programs. The most annoying difference is having to cast the result of
malloc in C++, which is considered bad practice in C and necessary in
C++.


Why is it considered "bad practice"? I know it is frowned upon
sometimes, but I fail to see the rationale for that.


1. You don't need the cast in C. If you have to cast (e.g. to shut up
a compiler warning) you most probably try to do something dangerous.
Implicit conversions to/from pointer-to-void from/to any other
pointer-to-<type> are explicitly permitted in C.

2. Casting malloc's return value may hide the (admittedly simple to fix)
error of not providing a proper prototype for malloc.
One advantage of casting malloc() results is that, like you say, one has
a fighting chance of getting a clean (error/warning-less) compile using
C++ in addition to getting a clean compile in C.
If you feel the need to insert spurious casts to make your C code pass a
C++ compiler without complaints, well, just do so, but IMHO this doesn't
make it good coding style. It is probably feasible to make e.g. Pascal
programs pass C compilers, but you end up with something that is neither
well written Pascal nor well written C.
For me, compiling a piece of code with as many compilers as I can get my
hands on (with maximum warning levels) has proven to be a great way of
catching problems; different compilers give different warnings.
I second that, as long as all these are compilers for the language the
code is written in.
Having one's C program compilable by a C++-compiler also helps, since
this can sometimes flag potential problems in the C code that are not
noticed by a C compiler.


Can you please eloborate on this?
AFAIK now it is possible to write code that compiles fine, but has
different semantics when compiled as C or C++ respectively.

Regards
--
Irrwahn
(ir*******@free net.de)
Nov 13 '05 #264
Hi Irrwahn,
[[casting malloc() result to target type]]
Why is it considered "bad practice"? I know it is frowned upon
sometimes, but I fail to see the rationale for that.

1. You don't need the cast in C. If you have to cast (e.g. to shut up
a compiler warning) you most probably try to do something dangerous.


There are circumstances where it is really needed of course, mostly in
low-level programming, and reading binary data formats. Casting is bad
if you just do it to shut down a compiler warning (I've assisted with
programming practicals at university, for novices this seems to be the
#1 reason to use casts), so you really have to understand what you're doing.
Implicit conversions to/from pointer-to-void from/to any other
pointer-to-<type> are explicitly permitted in C.
I think that is a mistake, and I am not going to drop casts that are not
needed just because the standard allows me to. I feel my code looks
prettier with malloc() casts.
2. Casting malloc's return value may hide the (admittedly simple to fix)
error of not providing a proper prototype for malloc.
If this is the case, I seriously doubt the quality of the compiler:

/* don't include stdlib.h */
int main(void)
{
char *x = (char *)malloc(100);
return 0;
}

The standard doesn't require the compiler to issue a warning of course
(never does), but I think, the year being AD2003 and all, that a
good-quality compiler should issue a warning whether the (char *) cast
is there or not.

/* don't include stdlib.h */
int main(void)
{
char *x = malloc(100);
return 0;
}

This version is legal C as well, so a compiler is free to not issue a
warning. So the only thing that is lost when including the (char *) cast
is that a compiler that would balk at program #2 might not balk at
program #1. I think that's a bad-quality compiler, and I think the
advantage of code that is both legal C and legal C++ outweighs the fact
that some bad compiler would fail to see the problem in program #1.
If you feel the need to insert spurious casts to make your C code pass a
C++ compiler without complaints, well, just do so, but IMHO this doesn't
make it good coding style.
I'm trying to argue it's not a black-and-white issue.
It is probably feasible to make e.g. Pascal
programs pass C compilers, but you end up with something that is neither
well written Pascal nor well written C.
Making a caricature of my position surely doesn't help much :-)
For me, compiling a piece of code with as many compilers as I can get my
hands on (with maximum warning levels) has proven to be a great way of
catching problems; different compilers give different warnings.


I second that, as long as all these are compilers for the language the
code is written in.


If, with minor hassle, it also passed C++, I think that's worth it,
given that C++ is (rightly, I think) stricter in some things than C.
Such as casting void pointers (one can disagree on that) and handling of
enums (see below).
Having one's C program compilable by a C++-compiler also helps, since
this can sometimes flag potential problems in the C code that are not
noticed by a C compiler.

Can you please eloborate on this?
Example:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

enum EType {
a,b,c
};

void f(enum EType x)
{
switch(x)
{
case a: printf("a\n"); break;
case b: printf("b\n"); break;
case c: printf("c\n"); break;
default: printf("yikes!\ n"); exit(1); break;
}
}

int main(void)
{
f(b);
f(1); /* uncasted call */
return 0;
}

This is a perfectly legal C program as far as I can tell, and it's
illegal in C++ due to the attempt to implicitly casting 1 to EType.

I think C++ is right to flag this as erroneous, and require a cast.
AFAIK now it is possible to write code that compiles fine, but has
different semantics when compiled as C or C++ respectively.


Sure it is possible. I am, however, advocating writing code that
complies with the intersection of C and C++, and works as intended. You
are coming perilously close to putting up a strawman here.

Best regards,

Sidney Cadot

Nov 13 '05 #265
Sidney Cadot wrote:
....
/* don't include stdlib.h */
int main(void)
{
char *x = malloc(100);
return 0;
}

This version is legal C as well, so a compiler is free to not issue a
warning.


It is not legal C. C99 requires a valid prototype and C89 does not
allow the assignment of int to char *. A diagnostic is *required*.

Jirka

Nov 13 '05 #266
"Sidney Cadot" <si****@jigsaw. nl> wrote in message
news:bm******** **@news.tudelft .nl...
Hi Irrwahn,
[[casting malloc() result to target type]]

Why is it considered "bad practice"? I know it is frowned upon
sometimes, but I fail to see the rationale for that.

1. You don't need the cast in C. If you have to cast (e.g. to shut up
a compiler warning) you most probably try to do something dangerous.

/snip/

Actually, casting the result of malloc() is *good*
programming practice, because it verifies that you
are assigning the result to the pointer-type that
you expect of the target variable.
fubar = (Gronk *) malloc(whatever _size_you_want) ;
This verifies that "fubar" is declared as a
pointer type to whatever Gronk is. If the
type of "fubar" is not (Gronk *), then the
compiler will complain about the pointer conversion.
The explicit cast clearly documents your intention
and allows the compiler to verify it.

OTOH, without the explicit cast, the compiler
will happily assign the (void*) result to fubar and
you won't know that you did something wrong. (Perhaps
you are assigning the result to the wrong variable?)

Finding burps like this at compile time is far more preferable
than tracking down runtime errors.

2 cents worth. Your mileage may vary.

Nov 13 '05 #267
Sidney Cadot wrote:
Christian Bau wrote:
[snip]

However, the majority of actual C programs can be changed with
little effort into source code that has identical behavior as C
and C++ programs. The most annoying difference is having to cast
the result of malloc in C++, which is considered bad practice in
C and necessary in C++.


Why is it considered "bad practice"? I know it is frowned upon
sometimes, but I fail to see the rationale for that.

One advantage of casting malloc() results is that, like you say,
one has a fighting chance of getting a clean (error/warning-less)
compile using C++ in addition to getting a clean compile in C.


It can hide errors that the compiler could otherwise pick up. It
prevents controlling the type of that object in only one place,
and having all other code slaved to that.

Casts are fundamentally evil things, and very often serve only to
conceal errors.

I have yet to see a C++ compiler that does not have a C mode, and
there is no problem linking C++ code with C code when the headers
are properly designed.

--
Chuck F (cb********@yah oo.com) (cb********@wor ldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net> USE worldnet address!
Nov 13 '05 #268

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, xarax wrote:

"Sidney Cadot" <si****@jigsaw. nl> wrote...
>> [[casting malloc() result to target type]]
>
>Why is it considered "bad practice"? I know it is frowned upon
>sometimes, but I fail to see the rationale for that.

1. You don't need the cast in C. If you have to cast (e.g. to shut up
a compiler warning) you most probably try to do something dangerous.

Actually, casting the result of malloc() is *good*
programming practice, because it verifies that you
are assigning the result to the pointer-type that
you expect of the target variable.


That's just silly. You, as the programmer, already *know* the type
of the target object, correct? And besides, well-written (i.e.,
idiomatic for c.l.c) malloc calls don't require *any* type information,
correct *or* incorrect -- it lets the compiler handle all the type
information by itself. Which of the following is most likely to
do the right thing, given that the type of 'p' might be hard to
remember?

extern Gronk *p;

p = (Gronk *) malloc(sizeof (Gronk));
p = (Gronk *) malloc(sizeof *p);
p = malloc(sizeof (Gronk));
p = malloc(sizeof *p);
(Hint: the last one.)

fubar = (Gronk *) malloc(whatever _size_you_want) ;
Where 'whatever_size_ you_want' is an integral multiple of
sizeof *fubar, sure. But in that case, why bother with the
cast?
This verifies that "fubar" is declared as a
pointer type to whatever Gronk is. If the
type of "fubar" is not (Gronk *), then the
compiler will complain about the pointer conversion.
The explicit cast clearly documents your intention
and allows the compiler to verify it.
True, but IMO not nearly as strong an argument as the "clarity,
brevity, and <stdlib.h> warning" arguments given by proponents
of the idiomatic (non-cast) style.

OTOH, without the explicit cast, the compiler
will happily assign the (void*) result to fubar and
you won't know that you did something wrong. (Perhaps
you are assigning the result to the wrong variable?)
Do you commonly write code in which two pointers to different
types are in scope at the same time? Unless you write compilers
for a living (which IMVLE often have pointers to symbol tables and
other things co-existing), I can't think of any context in which

Foo *my_foo;
Bar *my_bar;

my_bar = malloc(sizeof *my_foo);

could ever happen as a legitimate typo/error. And even if it
*did* happen, it's a fairly easy bug to find, especially now that
the code is made less cluttered by the removal of all those
spurious casts. Or did you have some other context in mind?

Finding burps like this at compile time is far more preferable
than tracking down runtime errors.

2 cents worth. Your mileage may vary.


MMDIV, as they say. You write a program with malloc casting that
you think will lose clarity or robustness by their removal, and I will
personally re-write the malloc-casting code to become clearer without
loss of robustness.

-Arthur
Nov 13 '05 #269
Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw. nl> wrote:
Hi Irrwahn,
[[casting malloc() result to target type]]

Why is it considered "bad practice"? I know it is frowned upon
sometimes, but I fail to see the rationale for that.
1. You don't need the cast in C. If you have to cast (e.g. to shut up
a compiler warning) you most probably try to do something dangerous.


There are circumstances where it is really needed of course, mostly in
low-level programming, and reading binary data formats.


The special cases are the reason why I said "most probably" and not
"certainly" . However, low-level code is unlikely to be pure portable
ISO-C anyway.
Casting is bad
if you just do it to shut down a compiler warning (I've assisted with
programming practicals at university, for novices this seems to be the
#1 reason to use casts), so you really have to understand what you're doing.
We both agree on this.
Implicit conversions to/from pointer-to-void from/to any other
pointer-to-<type> are explicitly permitted in C.


I think that is a mistake, and I am not going to drop casts that are not
needed just because the standard allows me to.


If you think that C99 6.3.2.3 is a mistake, you should submit a DR or a
proposal to the standards comittee. ;-)
I feel my code looks
prettier with malloc() casts.
We couldn't disagree more on this aspect, but it's a style question and
therefore IMHO not /that/ important.
2. Casting malloc's return value may hide the (admittedly simple to fix)
error of not providing a proper prototype for malloc.


If this is the case, I seriously doubt the quality of the compiler:

/* don't include stdlib.h */
int main(void)
{
char *x = (char *)malloc(100);
return 0;
}


warning: implicit declaration of function `malloc'
result: undefined behaviour; malloc now returns int, but with the cast
you told the compiler: shut up, even if otherwise it would be
so kind to issue another warning (see below).
The standard doesn't require the compiler to issue a warning of course
(never does), but I think, the year being AD2003 and all, that a
good-quality compiler should issue a warning whether the (char *) cast
is there or not.
You rely upon the fact that an integer is wide enough to hold a pointer
value. This holds true for some implementations . It invokes undefined
behaviour on others and is therefore dangerous and completely
unportable.
/* don't include stdlib.h */
int main(void)
{
char *x = malloc(100);
return 0;
}
warning: implicit declaration of function `malloc'
warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast
result: undefined behaviour
This version is legal C as well,
Not really. It invokes undefined behaviour, so a compiler is free to not issue a
warning. So the only thing that is lost when including the (char *) cast
is that a compiler that would balk at program #2 might not balk at
program #1.
Additionally you lost the chance of having well defined behaviour and
portability. Congratulations :^]
I think that's a bad-quality compiler, and I think the
advantage of code that is both legal C and legal C++ outweighs the fact
that some bad compiler would fail to see the problem in program #1.


So in your opinion a decent compiler should automagically know that the
return type of malloc is void *, without being told by a prototype.
I'm not aware of what implementations you have used so far, but I bet
all of them are bad-quality compilers according to your definition.
If you feel the need to insert spurious casts to make your C code pass a
C++ compiler without complaints, well, just do so, but IMHO this doesn't
make it good coding style.


I'm trying to argue it's not a black-and-white issue.


Well, style isn't, hiding errors IMO is.
It is probably feasible to make e.g. Pascal
programs pass C compilers, but you end up with something that is neither
well written Pascal nor well written C.


Making a caricature of my position surely doesn't help much :-)


Caricatures have the advantage of exposing certain aspects by hyperbole.
In one sense they are /defined/ that way. :o) Here's another one:
A perfectely valid Spanish sentence can also be a perfectly valid
Portugese sentence, but with a different meaning. The fact that both
are somewhat close related languages doens't make them compatible.
Moral: To order breakfeast using the wrong language can be dangerous.
For me, compiling a piece of code with as many compilers as I can get my
hands on (with maximum warning levels) has proven to be a great way of
catching problems; different compilers give different warnings.


I second that, as long as all these are compilers for the language the
code is written in.


If, with minor hassle, it also passed C++, I think that's worth it,
given that C++ is (rightly, I think) stricter in some things than C.
Such as casting void pointers (one can disagree on that) and handling of
enums (see below).


One has to weigh freedom against restriction. ;-)
If one prefers C++ over C for certain reasons, why not write C++ in the
first place, instead of breeding a chimera that's neither idiomatic C
nor idiomatic C++.
Having one's C program compilable by a C++-compiler also helps, since
this can sometimes flag potential problems in the C code that are not
noticed by a C compiler.
Can you please eloborate on this?


Example:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

enum EType {
a,b,c
};

void f(enum EType x)
{
switch(x)
{
case a: printf("a\n"); break;
case b: printf("b\n"); break;
case c: printf("c\n"); break;
default: printf("yikes!\ n"); exit(1); break;
}
}

int main(void)
{
f(b);
f(1); /* uncasted call */
return 0;
}

This is a perfectly legal C program as far as I can tell, and it's
illegal in C++ due to the attempt to implicitly casting 1 to EType.

I think C++ is right to flag this as erroneous, and require a cast.


Hm, "right" depends of ones POV in this case. The C standard does not
require a diagnostic, so it is wrong? I don't think so. However, this
leaves us with the last issue:
AFAIK now it is possible to write code that compiles fine, but has
different semantics when compiled as C or C++ respectively.


Sure it is possible. I am, however, advocating writing code that
complies with the intersection of C and C++, and works as intended. You
are coming perilously close to putting up a strawman here.


Am I? Then please tell me where the common subset of C and C++ is
defined, so I have something to make my code comply to, just in case I
want to code the same way you do; is it different for C89 compared to
C99? Please give a reference. Now who was how close to putting up a
strawman? ;-P

Regards, and have a nice weekend.
--
Irrwahn
(ir*******@free net.de)
Nov 13 '05 #270

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

3
11266
by: William C. White | last post by:
Does anyone know of a way to use PHP /w Authorize.net AIM without using cURL? Our website is hosted on a shared drive and the webhost company doesn't installed additional software (such as cURL) on the server because of that. Our site will have an SSL certificate next week, so I would like to use AIM instead of SIM, however, I don't know how to send data via POST over https and recieve data from the Authorize.net server over an https...
2
5865
by: Albert Ahtenberg | last post by:
Hello, I don't know if it is only me but I was sure that header("Location:url") redirects the browser instantly to URL, or at least stops the execution of the code. But appearantely it continues to execute the code until the browser send his reply to the header instruction. So an exit(); after each redirection won't hurt at all
3
23053
by: James | last post by:
Hi, I have a form with 2 fields. 'A' 'B' The user completes one of the fields and the form is submitted. On the results page I want to run a query, but this will change subject to which field is completed.
0
8508
by: Ollivier Robert | last post by:
Hello, I'm trying to link PHP with Oracle 9.2.0/OCI8 with gcc 3.2.3 on a Solaris9 system. The link succeeds but everytime I try to run php, I get a SEGV from inside the libcnltsh.so library. 354 roberto@ausone:Build/php-4.3.2> ldd /opt/php4/bin/php libsablot.so.0 => /usr/local/lib/libsablot.so.0 libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/local/lib/libstdc++.so.5 libm.so.1 => /usr/lib/libm.so.1
1
8621
by: Richard Galli | last post by:
I want viewers to compare state laws on a single subject. Imagine a three-column table with a drop-down box on the top. A viewer selects a state from the list, and that state's text fills the column below. The viewer can select states from the drop down lists above the other two columns as well. If the viewer selects only one, only one column fills. If the viewer selects two states, two columns fill. Etc. I could, if appropriate, have...
4
18317
by: Albert Ahtenberg | last post by:
Hello, I have two questions. 1. When the user presses the back button and returns to a form he filled the form is reseted. How do I leave there the values he inserted? 2. When the user comes back to a page where he had a submitted POST data the browser keeps telling that the data has expired and asks if repost. How to avoid that? I tried registering all POST and GET vars as SESSION vars but
1
6890
by: inderjit S Gabrie | last post by:
Hi all Here is the scenerio ...is it possibly to do this... i am getting valid course dates output on to a web which i have designed ....all is okay so far , look at the following web url http://www.mis.gla.ac.uk/biquery/training/ but each of the courses held have maximum of 8 people that could be
2
31461
by: Jack | last post by:
Hi All, What is the PHP equivilent of Oracle bind variables in a SQL statement, e.g. select x from y where z=:parameter Which in asp/jsp would be followed by some statements to bind a value to :parameter I dont like the idea of making the SQL statement on the fly without binding parameters as I dont want a highly polluted SQL cache.
3
23617
by: Sandwick | last post by:
I am trying to change the size of a drawing so they are all 3x3. the script below is what i was trying to use to cut it in half ... I get errors. I can display the normal picture but not the results of the picture half the size. The PHP I have installed support 1.62 or higher. And all I would like to do is take and image and make it fit a 3x3. Any suggestions to where I should read or look would be appreciated.
0
9935
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
9791
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
11137
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
10410
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
0
9571
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
0
5990
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
1
4609
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
2
4215
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
3
3231
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.