C is too old? opinions?

[Lasse Espeholt]

Hi...

I am relativ new to the impressive and powerfull C language, but i
thinks it is obsolete...

The idea with header/source files where methods can clash into
eachother i don't like... Look at C# which is much cleaner with
namespaces.

Why has C not namespaces and a "area idea" where some methods and
fields could be hidden from the outside?

Something like:

a_source_file.c :

namespace SomeName(.SomeN ame)
{
area Stack
{
private int[] myStack;

private void someMethod() {};

public void push(int i) {};
public int pop() {};
}
}

another_source_ file.c:

using SomeName(.SomeN ame);

int main(int argc, char[] *argv)
{
Stack.push(10);
System.printf(S tack.pop());
}

I'm really annoyed ;) Is im the only own with that point of view?

If i was a really good programmer (which i'm not... yet! ;)) i would
developed a compiler and a much more simple (but still impressive and
powerfull) c...

Best and kindest regards
Lasse Espeholt

[Lasse Espeholt]

On 2006-07-13 00:15:37 +0200, "Default User" <de***********@ yahoo.comsaid:

Lasse Espeholt wrote:

>Hi...

I am relativ new to the impressive and powerfull C language, but i
thinks it is obsolete...

What you think is largely irrelevant. C isn't going anywhere, and is
still the language of choice for many applications.

>The idea with header/source files where methods can clash into
eachother i don't like... Look at C# which is much cleaner with
namespaces.

Gawd. If you must have that, C++ is a far better idea.

Brian

better but still not perfect...
:)

[Lasse Espeholt]

On 2006-07-13 00:26:00 +0200, Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@nowh ereat.allsaid:

On 2006-07-12, Lasse Espeholt <Lassewrote:

>On 2006-07-12 23:58:00 +0200, Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@nowh ereat.allsaid:

>>On 2006-07-12, Lasse Espeholt <Lassewrote:
On 2006-07-12, Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@nowh ereat.allsaid:
Headers aren't technically necessary in C, either... it's still a
terrible idea to try and get along without them.

I think its workds great in other languages...?

A) Stop ending all of your statements with ellipses and question marks.
B) I don't think it works well in other languages; it's much nicer to
read a header to find the prototype of a function than to have to
find the definition, or documentation, or wherever else you might
find help.

A. Sorry for my formatting, i will try not to use question marks

B. In a modern IDE all the functions is listed.

[Lasse Espeholt]

On 2006-07-13 00:29:04 +0200, Ian Collins <ia******@hotma il.comsaid:

Lasse Espeholt wrote:

>On 2006-07-13 00:19:03 +0200, Ian Collins <ia******@hotma il.comsaid:

>>Lasse Espeholt wrote:

On 2006-07-12 23:58:00 +0200, Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@nowh ereat.all>
said:

>
Headers aren't technically necessary in C, either... it's still a
terrible idea to try and get along without them.

I think its workds great in other languages...?

They have rules to enforce application layout and/or complex object
names that include a search path. What would you rather have:

path.to.some. external.wibble .a();

or

#include "wibble.h"

a();

I like to have namespaces and using... ;)

So what's the difference in typing a few includes or the equivalent
using directives?

with includes you risk that the files have functions there have the same name.

with includes you shall write "ifndef __FILE_H__" otherwise you could
end up in trouble.

[Lasse Espeholt]

On 2006-07-13 00:31:23 +0200, Ian Collins <ia******@hotma il.comsaid:

Andrew Poelstra wrote:

>On 2006-07-12, Lasse Espeholt <Lassewrote:

>>On 2006-07-12 23:58:00 +0200, Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@nowh ereat.allsaid:
On 2006-07-12, Lasse Espeholt <Lassewrote:

On 2006-07-12, Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@nowh ereat.allsaid:

Headers aren't technically necessary in C, either... it's still a
terrible idea to try and get along without them.

I think its workds great in other languages...?

A) Stop ending all of your statements with ellipses and question marks.
B) I don't think it works well in other languages; it's much nicer to
read a header to find the prototype of a function than to have to
find the definition, or documentation, or wherever else you might
find help.

I'd second both points.

I've been doing a lot of PHP recently, and it is a real pain not having
a header like summary of an object's member functions. So much so, I
end up creating interfaces as a header replacement.

Maybe you should try a better IDE... with the Visual Studio and ASP.net
(c#, java,...) all methods(functio ns, procedure and what they are
called) is listed...

But i must amitted that i have'nt meet any well written PHP IDE, so
from that point of view i will agree with you....

[Fred Kleinschmidt]

<Lasse Espeholtwrote in message
news:44******** *************** @dread16.news.t ele.dk...

Hi...

I am relativ new to the impressive and powerfull C language, but i thinks
it is obsolete...

The idea with header/source files where methods can clash into eachother i
don't like... Look at C# which is much cleaner with namespaces.

Why has C not namespaces and a "area idea" where some methods and fields
could be hidden from the outside?

It does: static methods are hidden to the world outside the file in which
they are defined.

<snip>>

Best and kindest regards
Lasse Espeholt

--
Fred L. Kleinschmidt
Boeing Associate Technical Fellow
Technical Architect, Software Reuse Project

[Ian Collins]

Lasse Espeholt wrote:

On 2006-07-13 00:29:04 +0200, Ian Collins <ia******@hotma il.comsaid:

>Lasse Espeholt wrote:

>>I like to have namespaces and using... ;)

So what's the difference in typing a few includes or the equivalent
using directives?

with includes you risk that the files have functions there have the same
name.

That's why C++ added namespaces, the only remedy in C is care.

with includes you shall write "ifndef __FILE_H__" otherwise you could
end up in trouble.

I don't, my boilerplate generator does. In your case, I'm sure your
modern IDE would do the same.

--
Ian Collins.

[Al Balmer]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:31:02 +0200, Lasse Espeholt wrote:

>
I want a C with namespaces, usings, a "area" thing and without header files

It's becoming obvious that whatever it is that you want, it isn't C. I
suggest that you identify the language you do want, and then find a
suitable place to discuss it (it won't be here.)

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[Tak-Shing Chan]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Lasse Espeholt said:

<snip>

>I'm looking for the simplicity of c# without objects ;)

[It is very clear that Lasse is talking about objects in the
C# sense here.]

[Richard Heathfield continued:]

Then C is the wrong place to look. C has objects. So does C++, so it's no
good looking there, either.

While C does have objects, its definition (``object: a
region of data storage in the execution environment, the contents
of which can represent values'', C90/C99 3.14) is totally
different from that of C# which was the context of this subthread
(``The object class type is the ultimate base class of all other
types. Every type in C# directly or indirectly derives from the
object class type'', ECMA-334 11.2.2).

By comparing C objects with C# objects, one is making a
faulty analogy (also known as ``comparing apples with oranges'').

Better is to write that C# is off-topic here without making
that gratuitous (and logically unsound) remark.

Tak-Shing

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-07-12, Lasse Espeholt <Lassewrote:

nobody forcing me - no, but in some cases C is a wonderfull
language.... don't get me wrong... i don't hate the language... it is
infact one of my favourites but i think some things could be done
better... i think it has some things there issent nessesary in modern
languages... for example header files...

hhm... it is correct that nobody is stopping me, but i stops myself...
I'm not good enogh....

Well, then learn and become good enough. Also, please use proper
capitalization and punctuation.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware. net/projects/>
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above domain.
"You people hate mathematics." -- James Harris

[Lasse Espeholt]

On 2006-07-13 00:40:42 +0200, Ian Collins <ia******@hotma il.comsaid:

Lasse Espeholt wrote:

>On 2006-07-13 00:29:04 +0200, Ian Collins <ia******@hotma il.comsaid:

>>Lasse Espeholt wrote:

I like to have namespaces and using... ;)

So what's the difference in typing a few includes or the equivalent
using directives?

with includes you risk that the files have functions there have the same
name.

That's why C++ added namespaces, the only remedy in C is care.

>with includes you shall write "ifndef __FILE_H__" otherwise you could
end up in trouble.

I don't, my boilerplate generator does. In your case, I'm sure your
modern IDE would do the same.

Hmm, it seems like we come from two different worlds, but there is room
enogh to both opinions :) but i must amit that i throught many had the
same opinion as i do :)