As a programmer of both languages...

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Tomás Ó hÉilidhe, Dec 11, 2007.

  1. 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
    Tomás Ó hÉilidhe, Dec 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
    Richard Heathfield, Dec 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Tom��������������������������������" 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]
    Martin Ambuhl, Dec 11, 2007
    #3
  4. Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

    jacob navia Guest

    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, Dec 11, 2007
    #4
  5. Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

    jacob navia Guest

    Martin Ambuhl wrote:
    > "Tom��������������������������������" 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
    jacob navia, Dec 11, 2007
    #5
  6. Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

    Ian Collins Guest

    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.
    Ian Collins, Dec 11, 2007
    #6
  7. jacob navia wrote:
    > Martin Ambuhl wrote:
    >> "Tom��������������������������������" 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).
    Martin Ambuhl, Dec 11, 2007
    #7
  8. Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

    jacob navia Guest

    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
    jacob navia, Dec 11, 2007
    #8
  9. Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

    user923005 Guest

    On Dec 11, 10:31 am, "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.
    >
    > 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.


    Is it better to eat with a fork or a spoon?
    When I am eating green beans, I use a fork, but when I am eating peas,
    I use a spoon. Which is to say that they have slightly different
    purposes, even though both are used for eating. You can eat green
    beans with a spoon or peas with a fork, but it does not work out as
    well that way.
    C++ is a fork but C is a spoon. Which is to say, they have slightly
    different purposes, even though both are used for programming.
    If I am writing simple procedural filters, I will use C.
    If I am writing a complex system that needs inheritance and templates,
    then I will use C++.
    C++ does not remove the need for C and C cannot accomplish all the
    things that C++ can accomplish as easily.
    They are not competitors, except for the overlapping set where the
    needed functionality is easily derived from either language.
    Do we really need a C++ compiler with templates to write a state
    machine for a toaster IC?
    Do we really want to code a 10 million line project in C?
    C++ hides complexity, which is nice if you have an extremely complex
    project. But that's not always the case.
    It is pointless to debate if C is better than C++ or if C++ is better
    than C because both of them are good for what they are best at.
    You don't throw out the jigsaw because you bought a circular saw. I
    am not going to use a jigsaw to rip a 10 foot panel, and I am not
    going to use a circular saw to cut out a light socket opening.
    So choose your tools wisely, and don't toss them out unless you are
    sure that you don't need them.

    IMO-YMMV.
    user923005, Dec 11, 2007
    #9
  10. On Dec 11, 2:24 pm, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > 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
    Julienne Walker, Dec 11, 2007
    #10
  11. "Tomás Ó hÉilidhe" <> writes:
    > 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_Keith) <>
    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"
    Keith Thompson, Dec 11, 2007
    #11
  12. Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

    cr88192 Guest

    "user923005" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Dec 11, 10:31 am, "Tomás Ó hÉilidhe" <> wrote:

    <snip>

    <
    Is it better to eat with a fork or a spoon?
    When I am eating green beans, I use a fork, but when I am eating peas,
    I use a spoon. Which is to say that they have slightly different
    purposes, even though both are used for eating. You can eat green
    beans with a spoon or peas with a fork, but it does not work out as
    well that way.
    C++ is a fork but C is a spoon. Which is to say, they have slightly
    different purposes, even though both are used for programming.
    If I am writing simple procedural filters, I will use C.
    If I am writing a complex system that needs inheritance and templates,
    then I will use C++.
    C++ does not remove the need for C and C cannot accomplish all the
    things that C++ can accomplish as easily.
    They are not competitors, except for the overlapping set where the
    needed functionality is easily derived from either language.
    Do we really need a C++ compiler with templates to write a state
    machine for a toaster IC?
    Do we really want to code a 10 million line project in C?
    C++ hides complexity, which is nice if you have an extremely complex
    project. But that's not always the case.
    It is pointless to debate if C is better than C++ or if C++ is better
    than C because both of them are good for what they are best at.
    You don't throw out the jigsaw because you bought a circular saw. I
    am not going to use a jigsaw to rip a 10 foot panel, and I am not
    going to use a circular saw to cut out a light socket opening.
    So choose your tools wisely, and don't toss them out unless you are
    sure that you don't need them.

    IMO-YMMV.
    >



    yes, all this is true.


    actually, in my case, I don't often use spoons, so more often it turns into
    an issue of using a fork vs chopsticks.

    fork, good for larger objects, inconsistent objects (rice, ...), ...
    chopsticks are better for when everything is consistent-sized (and, they
    also have many other often non-food-related uses, such as retrieving screws,
    plugging in or unhooking small connectors, ...), and in many cases, it is
    just more "correct" to use chopsticks.

    at home though, I am lazy, I usually just use forks, or often not bothering
    with utensils...


    now, likewise, I most often use C.
    C++ offers a lot of things that, IMO, I either don't need, or go against my
    design practices.

    C++ tends to make large, highly-centralized code bases (much of the project
    being focused on some centralized design and class hierarchy), wheras I tend
    to focus on a modular approach (I like my codebase to be made of many
    largely independent pieces, rather than some large highly-centralized
    system).

    but mostly, C is a lot simpler, which matters more than a little to those of
    us who are compiler writers...
    cr88192, Dec 11, 2007
    #12
  13. 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.


    Oh great, another debate about religion.

    Answer: if you have a nail, don't use a screwdriver. And vice-versa.

    *threadplonk*.
    Mark McIntyre, Dec 11, 2007
    #13
  14. Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

    CBFalconer Guest

    jacob navia wrote:
    > 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.


    What Tomas should realize is that such discussion is off-topic in
    c.l.c, because the newsgroup discusses the C language as defined by
    the ISO standard and its predecessors. Jacob seems to be rather
    dull, and has never realized this, although it has been pointed out
    to him many times. Discussion on changing the C language belongs
    in comp.std.c. Discussion of the Navia non-C compilers belongs in
    comp.compilers.lcc, on which his compiler is based.

    --
    Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
    Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
    Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    CBFalconer, Dec 12, 2007
    #14
  15. [comp.lang.c] "Tom?s ? h?ilidhe" <> 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.


    And those of us who want to continue said vacuous debate are no doubt
    participating in said discussion. Why don't you go join it, and leave
    the rest of the group out of it?

    --
    C. Benson Manica | I appreciate all corrections, polite or otherwise.
    cbmanica(at)gmail.com |
    ----------------------| I do not currently read any posts posted through
    sdf.lonestar.org | Google groups, due to rampant unchecked spam.
    Christopher Benson-Manica, Dec 12, 2007
    #15
  16. jacob navia <> wrote in news:fjmo7k$tg6$:

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



    I appreciate the sentiment jacob, but please don't entertain the idea of me
    entertaining people who give non-input.

    I've read a few of your posts here jacob, and if you ask me, the only thing
    you're doing wrong on this newsgroup is entertaining the people who talk
    crap to you. Next time someone posts talking crap to you, don't reply.
    Either that or get a killfile. I tend to go for the ignoring option.

    --
    Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
    Tomás Ó hÉilidhe, Dec 12, 2007
    #16
  17. Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

    Ian Collins Guest

    jacob navia wrote:
    > 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++.
    >>

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

    Your ignorance continues to astound. Maybe you should take some time
    out and learn C++ before slagging it off.

    C++ does nothing magical with structs, if a struct is valid C, it is
    equally valid in C++, nothing is added. Otherwise how could we use C
    libraries with C++?

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

    By not using them?

    >
    > 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++.
    >

    If everything C does plus quite a bit more (like your beloved operator
    overloading) amounts to nothing.....

    > Or... I am just "dense" and fail to grasp the obvious :)
    >

    Probably.

    --
    Ian Collins.
    Ian Collins, Dec 12, 2007
    #17
  18. Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

    somenath Guest

    On Dec 11, 11:52 pm, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > 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.



    I would like to have some more inputs on the above point mentioned by
    you. You are indicating that "One's language choice depends partly on
    the program and partly on
    the programmer"
    Actually my doubt is how it can depend on program? Because we write
    program to solve one particular problem .Now before writing code we
    think about the algorithm which is independent of programming
    language.

    Could you give one small example where program decides the programming
    language?

    In my very small experience in programming I feel that choice of
    language depends upon the availability of compiler for the target
    system ,the availability of helper library and availability of the
    programmer of that particular language . (This observation is solely
    for choosing language between C and C ++)
    somenath, Dec 12, 2007
    #18
  19. somenath said:

    <snip>

    > Could you give one small example where program decides the programming
    > language?


    We had an example right here in comp.lang.c a day or two ago, where someone
    asked for help fixing a lllooonnnggg C program, and one of the respondents
    contributed an Awk script consisting of one (short and readable) line,
    that replaced the C program completely.

    --
    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
    Richard Heathfield, Dec 12, 2007
    #19
  20. Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

    jacob navia Guest

    Ian Collins wrote:
    > jacob navia wrote:
    >> 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++.
    >>>

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

    > Your ignorance continues to astound. Maybe you should take some time
    > out and learn C++ before slagging it off.
    >


    Yes Sir!

    struct A {
    int age;
    char *Name;
    };

    int main(void)
    {
    A jacob;
    }

    This is valid C++ but invalid C. In C++ each "structure" definition
    is just a CLASS where all members are PUBLIC by default. I see this
    explanation in all C++ books I read but in my ignorance I believe
    them. Stupid isn't it?

    > C++ does nothing magical with structs, if a struct is valid C, it is
    > equally valid in C++, nothing is added. Otherwise how could we use C
    > libraries with C++?
    >


    Both languages are still compatible at many levels. But I am not getting
    crazy, the concept of CLASS is CENTRAL to the C++ language.

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

    > By not using them?
    >


    Of course. But then you are not using C++.

    If you write

    int main(void) { printf("hello\n");}

    you do not need classes but is it C++?

    >> 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++.
    >>

    > If everything C does plus quite a bit more (like your beloved operator
    > overloading) amounts to nothing.....
    >


    You are just playing word games, a favorite sport in this group.
    Of course you can write programs in C and compile them with C++,
    modulo some differences it is possible. I would be surprised that you
    can use the STL without using implicitly a class!!!

    What I am saying is obvious. But you refuse to admit the obvious.
    C++ is centered around the class/inheritance concept and that is OO.
    jacob navia, Dec 12, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page