"Gary Labowitz" <gl*******@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qY********************@comcast.com
"John Carson" <do***********@datafast.net.au> wrote in message
news:3f******@usenet.per.paradox.net.au... "Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote in message
news:Au*****************@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net "max" <ma*@localhost.ca> wrote in message
news:pa***************************@localhost.ca...
> Hi,
> I'm verry new to cpp ( I think im using only C but n e way )
You need to find out which. C and C++ are distinct,
separate languages.
Stroustrup seems to be confused too. On p.21 of TC++PL we read:
"2.1 What is C++
C++ is a general-purpose programming language with a bias towards
systems programming that
- is a better C "
Are you thinking that by saying C++ is a better C that Stroustrup is
saying the C++ language is a C language, only better?
You might just as easily say "A claw hammer is a better nail-driving
device than a screwdriver" means a claw hammer is a screwdriver, only
better.
I think this is more in the context of what he means, i.e. C++ is
better at systems programming than C.
--
Gary
No, what he means is that you can use C++ for C-style programming if you
want, and that for this purpose C++ is a better language than C (better type
safety, for example). Of course, C++ offers many features that are missing
from C and, of course, Stroustrup would say that it is generally better to
make use of them.
The point of my original post (expressed in an ironic style) was that I
believe that the OP was saying that he was programming in C++ but in a C
style --- exactly what Stroustrup was talking about. Accordingly, there was
no basis for suggesting that he was confused about the fact that C and C++
are different languages, just as it would be absurd to suggest that
Stroustrup was confused on the question.
Some people in this newsgroup have what seems to me to be a religious
obsession about distinguishing C and C++. Of course they are different
languages, but maintaining backwards compatibility with C was one of the
fundamental design goals of C++. Accordingly, it is quite natural, even
though not strictly correct, to refer to "programming in C" or "using only
C" when using C++ for C-style programming. Such phrases, strictly speaking,
are metaphors, but some people seem unfamiliar with metaphors or think they
should be banned.
--
John Carson
1. To reply to email address, remove donald
2. Don't reply to email address (post here instead)
