why still use C?

[cody]

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

[Richard Heathfield]

cody wrote:

no this is no trollposting
I will try to bear that in mind.
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.
Believe it. Or test it. For your test to be significant, be sure you use a
wide range of test programs, equivalently written in C and C++ (don't
bother with the so-called "C subset" of C++ - either write in C or write in
C++), on a wide variety of programs. Tabulate your results. (If they're
worth a damn, they're probably worth publishing, perhaps on your Web site
in the first instance.)
in
pieces of the application where speed really matters you can still use
"normal" functions or even static methods which is basically the same.
Suck it and see.
in C there arent the simplest things present like constants,

int main(void)
{
const int new = 6; /* I rest my case */
return 0;
}
each struct
and enum have to be prefixed with "struct" and "enum".
Poor baby.
iam sure there is
much more.
Yes, there is. C is simple, portable, and very very fast. Those are
important qualities.
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?
There is a logical reason. Encapsulation is a great idea for some projects
(not all, of course), so why not use it (when appropriate)? Note, also,
that a C program such as you describe doesn't "fake OOP features" - rather,
it uses OOP to achieve its objectives. That C, which was /not/ designed to
do OOP, /can/ be used for OOP is quite remarkable in itself. Having said
that, I am very much of the "if you want OOP and C++ is available, use C++"
school - but note that C++ is /not/ available on anything like as many
target platforms as C is.

i feel C has to benefit against C++.

It does have three important advantages. It's simple, portable, and fast.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
--
comp.lang.c.mod erated - moderation address: cl**@plethora.n et

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

cody wrote:

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.
There is both a speed and size penalty for using C++ where
pain C would do. The penalty isn't as bad as it used to be.
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.
C has constants. We usually use typedefs rather than struct
and enum tags.
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?

It's very rare for C programs to "fake OOP features".

One of C's main benefits is that it is easier to implement
and has simpler run-time support requirements. This makes
it especially suited to embedded processors, for example.
--
comp.lang.c.mod erated - moderation address: cl**@plethora.n et

[Sven Semmler]

cody wrote:

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++.

C is available on nearly every machine. C++ is not. OOP is a nice thing
but not for everything.

"With OOP we can solve problems very elegant, we wouldn't have without
it."

While the above statement is not entirely true, there is some truth in it.
;)

/Sven

--
Remove the "-usenet" part of the mail address to mail me. The Gibe/Swen
worm forced me to shutdown my usenet email address for a limited time.
--
comp.lang.c.mod erated - moderation address: cl**@plethora.n et

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <cl************ ****@plethora.n et>,
"cody" <NO************ ****@gmx.net> wrote:

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++.
C++ *is* C. Worse, it is an improper superset of C. Of all the things
you might advocate as an "alternativ e" to ANSI C, C++ is probably the
worst.
i don't get it why people program in C and faking OOP features(functi on
pointers in structs..) instead of using C++.

This is laughable. It is C++ that is best known for faking OO features!
If you're looking for an OO extension to C that is actually well done,
one that is additionally a proper superset of C, you should be looking
at Objective-C. But that's still in the C family. If you don't want C,
don't use C; don't use C++ and pretend you're not using C, though.
--
comp.lang.c.mod erated - moderation address: cl**@plethora.n et

[Jeremy Yallop]

cody wrote:

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

Neither of these is really true. "Real" integer constants can be
created using enums (or "#define"), and you can use "typedef" to avoid
having to write "struct" or "enum" everywhere if it bothers you, e.g.:

typedef enum { false, true } bool;

Jeremy.
--
comp.lang.c.mod erated - moderation address: cl**@plethora.n et

[fermath]

Hi all

My reason is simple: I have no time at the moment to learn C++ and C fits my
needs.

Well, I actually know something about C++, but I feel that you need a lot of
knowledke on C++ to be able to develop "big programs", I mean that there are
lots of things that need to be well understood, otherwise you are dead (you
know, lot of errors you can't find...)

"cody" <NO************ ****@gmx.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:cl******** ********@pletho ra.net...

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

--
comp.lang.c.mod erated - moderation address: cl**@plethora.n et

[E. Robert Tisdale]

cody wrote:

I am very curious about why people still use C
instead of other languages, especially C++.
Fear of change.
I heard people say C++ is slower than C but I can't believe that.
Neither can I. In fact, I know it isn't true.
No one has *ever* shown an example of C code
which is faster that C++ (or slower than C code)
that actually performed the same computation.
The speed of the code emitted by either a C or C++ compiler
depends *only* upon the quality of the the compiler.
In pieces of the application where speed really matters,
you can still use "normal" [C] functions or even static methods
which is basically the same.
It doesn't matter.
In C, there aren't the simplest things present like constants,
C supports the const keyword now.
each struct and enum must be prefixed with "struct" and "enum".
typedef struct X {
// public data members
} X;

in C is the same as

struct X {
// public data members
};

in C++.
I am sure there is much more.

I don't get it why people program in C and faking OOP features
(function 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++.

They are *not* faking OOP features.
This is just the way that C programmers wrote object oriented programs
before the C++ programming language was introduced.
The C++ programming just makes object oriented programming
easier, more reliable and more portable -- that's all that
*any* so called object oriented programming language can do.
--
comp.lang.c.mod erated - moderation address: cl**@plethora.n et

[Thomas Matthews]

cody wrote:

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.
C++ is not slower than C. Many early C++ compilers would translate C++
to C, then proceed as a C compiler.

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.
No, this is just a typing issue. All those things disappear during code
execution. One can use the typedef facility for making abbreviations.

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?
Many people have to deal with legacy code. Some OOP features have been
coded in C and have been tested. Converting them to C++ means more
development and testing time.

i feel C has to benefit against C++.

--
cody

Each language has its thorns and roses. I just asked if I could use C++
on our next embedded project and the management said no.

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.l earn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.raos.demon.uk/acllc-c++/faq.html
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book
--
comp.lang.c.mod erated - moderation address: cl**@plethora.n et

[Serve La]

"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <ga*@ugcs.calte ch.edu> wrote in message
news:74******** ************@rw crnsc52.ops.asp .att.net...

Well, some people consider C as a glorified assembler. It isn't quite that, especially as it has changed over the years, but not so far off.

Yes, let's talk about that. When I code in C for my favorite platform I do
tend to "see" the generated assembly in my head. The picture gets bigger and
changes too as I gain more experience, but I do think a lot more like that
machine when programming in C. When I do C++ this is a lot less, I tend to
think in terms of objects and generated objects (templates). Can't decide
what I like better, I keep switching back and forth between the two.

consider this:
size_t i = strcspn(s, "\n");
std::string::si ze_type i = s.find_first_of ("\n");

In my mind strcspn does it a lot simpler than find_first_of.

Or even simpler.
strlen(s);
s.length();

What does s.length() example do? Do strlen somewhere? (some implementations
do). Keep track of the length?
You just give up a lot of control with C++.

[Santa Claus]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:22:06 -0400, Eric Sosman wrote:

It'll be right next to the place reserved for people who
sling mud anonymously.

If your criticism has merit
Notice that it is a personal opinion, based on my experience. Yours might
differ, and you are welcome to that.
(I know too little of C++ to
evaluate it), have the courage to put your name to it.
What name? How do we know, anyway, that any names at the end of a post
correspond to the poster? Is it going to make you happier if I sign as
James S. Taylor? Or as Madhusudan Patel? Or as Pierre Mattera? Can you
tell if any of those is my real name? What difference does it make?
If the courage is lacking, what are we to make of your confidence in
your own opinion?
Make whatever you want.
And if you have so little confidence in it, why bother us with it?
Wrong conclusion from the wrong premise. You can't conclude anything
from my posting about my relative lack of confidence in any anything.
May the next chimney you slide down have a roaring fire
at the bottom.

Hmm... We touched a raw nerve here :-)