As a programmer of both languages...

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

There seems to be constant vacuous debate about which is better or
preferable, C or C++, and it looks like one of these discussions is on-
going right now in this newsgroup.

I'm a programmer who started out in C++, and who's currently doing
an embedded systems project in C. The relationship and comparison
between the two languages is very simple in my opinion.

The objective of C++ was to build upon C; to take everything that C
can do, and then add a few more features, such as classes, operator
overloading, and exceptions.

Overlooking the small differences between the common subset of the
two languages (e.g. converting from void*, the type of character
literals), it's quite accurate to say that C++ is C with some more added
features.

So at the most basic, you can say that C++ is better than C in that
it can do everything C can does, and that it has a few more extra
features. That's great and all, but the price to pay for these extra
features is the increased complexity of the compiler. I'm currently
writing a program for the PIC 16F684 microcontroller (which is less than
the size of a postage stamp), and there wouldn't be a snowball's chance
in hell of me finding a C++ compiler for it. Why? Because nobody's
bothered writing one. I mean *have* *you* *seen* the size of the C++
Standard? :-O Not only that, but when programming for embedded systems,
the nature of the programs doesn't tend to give rise to a desire for
object-orientated programming. The current program I'm writing is a
Connect4 game, and there hasn't be one instance yet in which I've
yearned for object orientation (even though I use classes extensively
when writing PC applications).

So my own point of view is that while C++ is the programming
language to be used today for PC's, game consoles and the like, C is
still the king when it comes to embedded systems, and that doesn't seem
like changing any time soon. And for the less-than-proficient among us,
there's Java for PC's, and Basic for micrcontrollers .

--
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

[Richard Heathfield]

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe said:

>
There seems to be constant vacuous debate about which is better or
preferable, C or C++, and it looks like one of these discussions is on-
going right now in this newsgroup.

It is indeed a vacuous debate. Some problems fit better in C than in C++
and vice versa, and some programmers are better at C than at C++ and vice
versa. One's language choice depends partly on the program and partly on
the programmer.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Martin Ambuhl]

"Tomï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½" wrote:

There seems to be constant vacuous debate about which is better or
preferable, C or C++, and it looks like one of these discussions is on-
going right now in this newsgroup.

Not really, except for a few idiots like you who try to restart such
stupid "debate". Go away.

[vapid language-war fodder snipped]

[jacob navia]

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

There seems to be constant vacuous debate about which is better or
preferable, C or C++, and it looks like one of these discussions is on-
going right now in this newsgroup.

No, it has never been a discussion about C or C++, since most people
here will agree that C is the better choice

What we are discussing is whether we should incorporate into C some
modifications like operator overloading and try/catch into the core C
language.

I have developed a C compiler that implements those enhancements in a
way that is compatible with the C standard. This offends many people
here that say that C "doesn't need" those things and even if it
disappears, it is better to leave it like it is now.

I'm a programmer who started out in C++, and who's currently doing
an embedded systems project in C. The relationship and comparison
between the two languages is very simple in my opinion.

The objective of C++ was to build upon C; to take everything that C
can do, and then add a few more features, such as classes, operator
overloading, and exceptions.

The difference between C and C++ is the object orientation of C++. C is
not object oriented.

Overlooking the small differences between the common subset of the
two languages (e.g. converting from void*, the type of character
literals), it's quite accurate to say that C++ is C with some more added
features.

Too many added features pecisely. What I am proposing is not taking all
of that but just two, to make C an easier language to use.

So at the most basic, you can say that C++ is better than C in that
it can do everything C can does, and that it has a few more extra
features. That's great and all, but the price to pay for these extra
features is the increased complexity of the compiler. I'm currently
writing a program for the PIC 16F684 microcontroller (which is less than
the size of a postage stamp), and there wouldn't be a snowball's chance
in hell of me finding a C++ compiler for it. Why? Because nobody's
bothered writing one. I mean *have* *you* *seen* the size of the C++
Standard? :-O Not only that, but when programming for embedded systems,
the nature of the programs doesn't tend to give rise to a desire for
object-orientated programming. The current program I'm writing is a
Connect4 game, and there hasn't be one instance yet in which I've
yearned for object orientation (even though I use classes extensively
when writing PC applications).

A simple language is needed, not ONLY for the PIC 16F684. A simple
language is needed because it is easier to use!

Now, it can't be TOO simple, because that makes it HARDER to use than
necessary.

So my own point of view is that while C++ is the programming
language to be used today for PC's, game consoles and the like, C is
still the king when it comes to embedded systems, and that doesn't seem
like changing any time soon. And for the less-than-proficient among us,
there's Java for PC's, and Basic for micrcontrollers .

No. C is a general purpose programming language. With a few enhancements and
a better library it can become a great programming language for
many tasks.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[jacob navia]

Martin Ambuhl wrote:

"Tomï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿ ½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½" wrote:

> There seems to be constant vacuous debate about which is better or
preferable, C or C++, and it looks like one of these discussions is on-
going right now in this newsgroup.

Not really, except for a few idiots like you who try to restart such
stupid "debate". Go away.

[vapid language-war fodder snipped]

Please do not take this ... well... person, as representing anyone but
himself.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Ian Collins]

jacob navia wrote:

>
The difference between C and C++ is the object orientation of C++. C is
not object oriented.

Are you really dense, or just being obtuse? As you have been told many
times before, C++ is a multi paradigm language. You can *choose* to
write OO or procedural code in C++.

--
Ian Collins.

[Martin Ambuhl]

jacob navia wrote:

Martin Ambuhl wrote:

>"Tomï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï ¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï ¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï ¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï ¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï ¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï ¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½" wrote:

>> There seems to be constant vacuous debate about which is better
or preferable, C or C++, and it looks like one of these discussions
is on-
going right now in this newsgroup.

Not really, except for a few idiots like you who try to restart such
stupid "debate". Go away.

[vapid language-war fodder snipped]

Please do not take this ... well... person, as representing anyone but
himself.

Yes, I had forgotten about Jacob Navia, a troll who comes here to flog
his commercial software (available with a free license if you never use
it for anything useful).

[jacob navia]

Ian Collins wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

>The difference between C and C++ is the object orientation of C++. C is
not object oriented.

Are you really dense, or just being obtuse? As you have been told many
times before, C++ is a multi paradigm language. You can *choose* to
write OO or procedural code in C++.

Yes, and you can choose to write in C using a C++ compiler and
framework. Does that mean that C++ is C???

C++ was defined during the 90ties as THE object oriented language.
Now, that the hype as gone and people start realizing that this wasn't
the silver bullet after all, C++ will be sold as a "multi paradigm"
language.

But the basic machinery: constructors/destructors/classes/methods
is still there. I do not understand why this fads must be followed:
it was conceived as an OO language and it was marketed as an OO language
for around 10 years.

Now they start marketing it as "Multi paradigm". this is handy yes,
but the facts are stubborn.

You can't program in C++ without using classes. Even if you define
a simple structure it is actually a class.

Of course you can write a hello world program without them but explain
me how do you ignore classes in C++?

I think it would be quite hard.

Multi paradigm?

Maybe, who knows what buzzword will be invented in the future, but
the fact is that without classes you just can't do anything at all in
C++.

Or... I am just "dense" and fail to grasp the obvious :-)
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Julienne Walker]

On Dec 11, 2:24 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.c omwrote:

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

There seems to be constant vacuous debate about which is better or
preferable, C or C++, and it looks like one of these discussions is on-
going right now in this newsgroup.

No, it has never been a discussion about C or C++, since most people
here will agree that C is the better choice

The better choice for what? I'd like to believe that most people here
are enlightened enough to realize that personal preference alone
doesn't make a language suitable for a project.

What we are discussing is whether we should incorporate into C some
modifications like operator overloading and try/catch into the core C
language.

To be honest, I haven't seen many people advocating those additions.
However, I *have* seen countless people argue endlessly about whether
C is better than C++ or vice versa. I'd much rather see discussions
about how to improve the languages (preferably located in the correct
newsgroup) than truly petty holy wars about which one is better.

I have developed a C compiler that implements those enhancements in a
way that is compatible with the C standard. This offends many people
here that say that C "doesn't need" those things and even if it
disappears, it is better to leave it like it is now.

I don't think anybody has a problem with extensions. It seems to me
that the problem is discussion of extensions or improvements in a
newsgroup that's devoted to the standard language. Discussion of
extensions should be relocated to the newsgroup for the compiler in
which they're implemented, and improvements should be relocated to a
newsgroup that's devoted to the language standard (comp.std.c). In the
correct newsgroup those discussions can do more good.

The objective of C++ was to build upon C; to take everything that C
can do, and then add a few more features, such as classes, operator
overloading, and exceptions.

The difference between C and C++ is the object orientation of C++. C is
not object oriented.

Templates are something of a big difference as well. ;-)

Overlooking the small differences between the common subset of the
two languages (e.g. converting from void*, the type of character
literals), it's quite accurate to say that C++ is C with some more added
features.

Too many added features pecisely. What I am proposing is not taking all
of that but just two, to make C an easier language to use.

I'm not convinced that operator overloading is such a desirable
feature that it would be one of the two that you would borrow from C+
+. Exception handling is tricky to the point where I don't see much of
it even in C++; I doubt how well it would be received in C.

So my own point of view is that while C++ is the programming
language to be used today for PC's, game consoles and the like, C is
still the king when it comes to embedded systems, and that doesn't seem
like changing any time soon. And for the less-than-proficient among us,
there's Java for PC's, and Basic for micrcontrollers .

No. C is a general purpose programming language. With a few enhancements and
a better library it can become a great programming language for
many tasks.

I'm not sure about enhancements to the language, but some work on the
library would be nice.
-Jul

[Keith Thompson]

"Tomás Ó hÉilidhe" <to*@lavabit.co mwrites:

There seems to be constant vacuous debate about which is better or
preferable, C or C++, and it looks like one of these discussions is on-
going right now in this newsgroup.

[snip]

Yes. Why must you start yet another one?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) <ks***@mib.or g>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"