C++ wins over C !!

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Paul, Aug 24, 2004.

  1. Paul

    Paul Guest

    Paul, Aug 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul

    Carter Smith Guest

    Languages are tools. Comparing C++ to C is like comparing a hammer to a
    screwdriver. C has its uses and C++ has its uses.

    Ben Kucenski
    www.icarusindie.com


    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > See this post, C seems to be loosing here
    > Are we still programming in C, just b'cause those mortals find it easy
    > to develop a C compiler than C++ compiler. Considering C++ can do
    > every thing that C can and Vice Versa is not true. then why C?
    > I personally like C, C is good but C++ is great.
    >
    >

    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...e3e6.0408191850.1905d0ce%40posting.google.com
    >
    > -Paul.
     
    Carter Smith, Aug 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > See this post, C seems to be loosing here
    > Are we still programming in C, just b'cause those mortals find it easy
    > to develop a C compiler than C++ compiler. Considering C++ can do
    > every thing that C can and Vice Versa is not true. then why C?
    > I personally like C, C is good but C++ is great.
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...e3e6.0408191850.1905d0ce%40posting.google.com
    >
    > -Paul.


    Is it really necessary to weigh everything up against everything else in an
    attempt to determine value?

    Please don't troll.
     
    Kieran Simkin, Aug 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Paul wrote:
    >
    > See this post, C seems to be loosing here


    Define "losing".

    > Are we still programming in C, just b'cause those mortals find it easy
    > to develop a C compiler than C++ compiler.


    Which mortals?

    > Considering C++ can do
    > every thing that C can


    Not true. The folliwng snippet of code wont compile
    with any C++ compiler I know of:

    int main (void)
    { int new = 1, except = 2, throw =3;
    return new * except + throw;
    };

    > then why C?
    > I personally like C, C is good but C++ is great.


    C++ is overly complicated. It tries to be a high level
    language and a low level language and fails miserably
    at both.

    Erik
    --
    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
    Erik de Castro Lopo (Yes it's valid)
    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
    Open Source and Free Software means that you never sacrifice quality
    of the code for meeting deadlines set up by people not participating
    directly in the software development process.
     
    Erik de Castro Lopo, Aug 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Paul

    Paul Guest

    "Carter Smith" <> wrote in message news:<DdzWc.16120$L94.15729@fed1read07>...
    > Languages are tools. Comparing C++ to C is like comparing a hammer to a
    > screwdriver. C has its uses and C++ has its uses.
    >
    > Ben Kucenski
    > www.icarusindie.com
    >
    >
    > "Paul" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > See this post, C seems to be loosing here
    > > Are we still programming in C, just b'cause those mortals find it easy
    > > to develop a C compiler than C++ compiler. Considering C++ can do
    > > every thing that C can and Vice Versa is not true. then why C?
    > > I personally like C, C is good but C++ is great.
    > >
    > >

    > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...e3e6.0408191850.1905d0ce%40posting.google.com
    > >
    > > -Paul.


    I agree with you folks, we can't compare every thing with every thing
    else. But in my profession as a programmer, I many times encounter a
    word "Portability" and a phrase "C is Portable across platforms". Some
    of the projects in which I was involved where C++ is a best fit, my
    boss chose C defeating us with that one word. This is just because not
    all platforms have a C++ compiler. Then it makes me wonder is it a
    right decision and why are we forced to use C just for the sake of
    PORTABILITY (modular) where C++ (OOAD) would have been better.

    Its like using a screw driver and fist to nail, instead of hammer.

    -Paul
     
    Paul, Aug 24, 2004
    #5
  6. On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:14:34 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

    > C++ is overly complicated. It tries to be a high level
    > language and a low level language and fails miserably
    > at both.


    Indeed! I will never understand why Mr. Stroustrup apparently decided
    that it would be easy for people to move from a procedural paradigm to an
    object oriented one but, at the same time, they would have difficulties
    adapting to a syntax better adapted to the latter. To me, moving from
    syntax to syntax is easy; changing a way thinking, is not.

    Apart from this rant, what makes Mr. Stroustrup a permanent member of the
    Computing Hall of Shame is his decision to come up with a (purportedly)
    high level language without automatic garbage collection. This is an
    unforgivable decision.
     
    Augustus S.F.X Van Dusen, Aug 24, 2004
    #6
  7. Paul

    Fredrik Tolf Guest

    On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 19:58 -0700, Paul wrote:
    > See this post, C seems to be loosing here
    > Are we still programming in C, just b'cause those mortals find it easy
    > to develop a C compiler than C++ compiler. Considering C++ can do
    > every thing that C can and Vice Versa is not true. then why C?


    Would you mind giving an example of something that is doable with C++
    but not with C?

    > I personally like C, C is good but C++ is great.


    I personally despise C++. It's just a lot of bloat that I never use
    anyway. With C, on the other hand, I use almost the entire language (90%
    of all constructs?) without ever feeling restricted. And that's the
    thing - there's nothing you can do with C++ that you can't do with C,
    and yet C is much lighter and leaner than C++.

    Just my two cents - I have no wish two start a flamewar.

    Fredrik Tolf
     
    Fredrik Tolf, Aug 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Fredrik Tolf <> scribbled the following:
    > On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 19:58 -0700, Paul wrote:
    >> See this post, C seems to be loosing here
    >> Are we still programming in C, just b'cause those mortals find it easy
    >> to develop a C compiler than C++ compiler. Considering C++ can do
    >> every thing that C can and Vice Versa is not true. then why C?


    > Would you mind giving an example of something that is doable with C++
    > but not with C?


    Or for that matter, giving an example of something that is doable in one
    Turing-complete language but not another?

    --
    /-- Joona Palaste () ------------- Finland --------\
    \-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
    "A computer program does what you tell it to do, not what you want it to do."
    - Anon
     
    Joona I Palaste, Aug 24, 2004
    #8
  9. Paul

    Guest

    On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Augustus S.F.X Van Dusen wrote:

    > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:14:34 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
    >
    >> C++ is overly complicated. It tries to be a high level
    >> language and a low level language and fails miserably
    >> at both.

    >
    > Indeed! I will never understand why Mr. Stroustrup apparently decided
    > that it would be easy for people to move from a procedural paradigm to an
    > object oriented one but, at the same time, they would have difficulties
    > adapting to a syntax better adapted to the latter. To me, moving from
    > syntax to syntax is easy; changing a way thinking, is not.
    >
    > Apart from this rant, what makes Mr. Stroustrup a permanent member of the
    > Computing Hall of Shame is his decision to come up with a (purportedly)
    > high level language without automatic garbage collection. This is an
    > unforgivable decision.


    amen!

    the memory management complexities one can impose on oneself via deep object
    trees is simply too great a burden for mere mortals to deal with safely - even
    the best c++ programers i know admit spending nearly half of their debugging
    time chasing memory errors. when good gc implemenations can be show to
    produce __better__ and __faster__ code than hand coded memory management it
    begs the question: "why should management decide to pay for this sillyness?".

    regards.

    -a
    --
    ===============================================================================
    | EMAIL :: Ara [dot] T [dot] Howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
    | PHONE :: 303.497.6469
    | A flower falls, even though we love it;
    | and a weed grows, even though we do not love it.
    | --Dogen
    ===============================================================================
     
    , Aug 24, 2004
    #9
  10. Paul wrote:

    > "Carter Smith" <> wrote in message news:<DdzWc.16120$L94.15729@fed1read07>...
    >
    >>Languages are tools. Comparing C++ to C is like comparing a hammer to a
    >>screwdriver. C has its uses and C++ has its uses.
    >>
    >>Ben Kucenski
    >>www.icarusindie.com
    >>
    >>
    >>"Paul" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>>See this post, C seems to be loosing here
    >>>Are we still programming in C, just b'cause those mortals find it easy
    >>>to develop a C compiler than C++ compiler. Considering C++ can do
    >>>every thing that C can and Vice Versa is not true. then why C?
    >>>I personally like C, C is good but C++ is great.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...e3e6.0408191850.1905d0ce%40posting.google.com
    >>
    >>>-Paul.

    >
    >
    > I agree with you folks, we can't compare every thing with every thing
    > else. But in my profession as a programmer, I many times encounter a
    > word "Portability" and a phrase "C is Portable across platforms". Some
    > of the projects in which I was involved where C++ is a best fit, my
    > boss chose C defeating us with that one word. This is just because not
    > all platforms have a C++ compiler. Then it makes me wonder is it a
    > right decision and why are we forced to use C just for the sake of
    > PORTABILITY (modular) where C++ (OOAD) would have been better.
    >
    > Its like using a screw driver and fist to nail, instead of hammer.
    >
    > -Paul


    Ok, so I'm feeding the troll.

    I really don't understand. Perhaps you have a narrow field of
    vision.

    Both C and C++ and FORTRAN and LISP and a whole plethora of languages
    are "portable" to other platforms. All projects have their line
    between platform dependent and platform indepent code. These
    sections really have nothing to do with Object Oriented Architecture
    or Design (OOA / OOD). Object Oriented and procedural are just
    different methods of how to get a task done. One could write the
    platform dependent code using OO and the platform independent using
    procedural. Hey, the wto pieces can be written in different language
    too.

    If one has a choice to select a language for a project, there are
    many criteria for doing so; least of which is "X language is cool."
    I choose the language that helps get the project done the fastest
    with the best quality and readability. If the choice is LOGO, then
    so mote it be.

    I agree with you that not all platforms have compilers for all
    the languages. If you language choice is COBOL, but there are
    not compilers for the platform, you will have to choose another
    language or develop the compiler yourself.

    In my profession as a software developer, one does not care
    about whether a language is better or not. Most of the time,
    the language used cannot be changed. One has to make the
    best of the situation and know how to accomplish the task
    in the best manner. Often times, that does not involve wasting
    time debating the advocacy of a a language.

    Perhaps you should take this issue to a newsgroup with
    "advocacy" in its name.


    --
    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.learn.c-c++ faq:
    http://www.comeaucomputing.com/learn/faq/
    Other sites:
    http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book
     
    Thomas Matthews, Aug 24, 2004
    #10
  11. Paul

    Guillaume Guest

    Reading this message...

    Do you think stupidity wins over intelligence?
     
    Guillaume, Aug 24, 2004
    #11
  12. In my opinion C++ makes things utterly complicated. The only advantage
    of C++ is that the language features( and requirements) make things a
    bit easier for the programmer by enforcing rules that result in fewer
    errors and thereby simplify the debugging process. But I guess, if a
    programmer really writes code using his brain then C is much better.

    Regards,
    Arvind.
     
    Arvind Varma Kalidindi, Aug 24, 2004
    #12
  13. Paul

    Default User Guest

    Paul wrote:
    >
    > See this post, C seems to be loosing here



    Another stupid language war troll.

    *plonk* Paul

    *plonk* thread



    Brian Rodenborn
     
    Default User, Aug 24, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <cgfkqb$88k$>,
    Joona I Palaste <> wrote:
    >Fredrik Tolf <> scribbled the following:


    >> Would you mind giving an example of something that is doable with C++
    >> but not with C?


    Reference-counted garbage collection handled by the compiler.
    (No, reference counting isn't a complete garbage collection mechanism,
    but it's often Good Enough. Yes, this can be done in C, but only if the
    programmer *always* remembers it, and there's no way to ask the compiler
    to handle it instead.)


    >Or for that matter, giving an example of something that is doable in one
    >Turing-complete language but not another?


    User interfacing. Name a user interface style, and I'll give you a
    turing-complete language that doesn't support it.

    (Turing-completeness is only suitable for discussing whether something can
    or can't be computed by a specific computing model (anything computable
    by any turing-complete model is computable by any other turing-complete
    model); it doesn't say anything at all about how a program communicates
    with the outside world, and doesn't shed any light on how easily or
    effectively a given computation can actually be performed in using a
    given model.)


    dave

    --
    Dave Vandervies

    Don't blame me, blame Georg Cantor.
    --James Riden in the scary devil monastery
     
    Dave Vandervies, Aug 24, 2004
    #14
  15. Paul

    Minti Guest

    "Augustus S.F.X Van Dusen" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:14:34 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
    >
    > > C++ is overly complicated. It tries to be a high level
    > > language and a low level language and fails miserably
    > > at both.

    >
    > Indeed! I will never understand why Mr. Stroustrup apparently decided
    > that it would be easy for people to move from a procedural paradigm to an
    > object oriented one but, at the same time, they would have difficulties
    > adapting to a syntax better adapted to the latter. To me, moving from
    > syntax to syntax is easy; changing a way thinking, is not.




    Stroustrup has never ever said that it is easier to move from procedural to
    OOP. Everyone I know { including me from my own experience } agrees it is
    difficult to do so. Even Stroustrup in his book and a plethora of other
    places has openly said that it is quite difficult actually to move from C to
    C++.


    >
    > Apart from this rant, what makes Mr. Stroustrup a permanent member of the
    > Computing Hall of Shame is his decision to come up with a (purportedly)
    > high level language without automatic garbage collection.


    > This is an unforgivable decision.



    You won't have said this if you have every worked on even a small project no
    matter in what language. BTW Stroustrup is well respected no matter what you
    say. Do you think that Java could have existed or come into being without
    the paradigams established/follwed by C++. Java necessarily tries to take
    the best of the features from the paradigams that existed at that time.

    --
    Imanpreet Singh Arora

    Reply isingh AT acm DOT org.
    If I would have only known, I would have been a locksmith.
    -- Albert Einstein
     
    Minti, Aug 24, 2004
    #15
  16. Paul

    Mike Wahler Guest

    "Kieran Simkin" <> wrote in message
    news:cHzWc.131$...
    > "Paul" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > See this post, C seems to be loosing here
    > > Are we still programming in C, just b'cause those mortals find it easy
    > > to develop a C compiler than C++ compiler. Considering C++ can do
    > > every thing that C can and Vice Versa is not true. then why C?
    > > I personally like C, C is good but C++ is great.
    > >
    > >

    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&thre
    adm=d8b1e3e6.0408191850.1905d0ce%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3F
    hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3Dd8b1e3e6.
    0408191850.1905d0ce%2540posting.google.com
    > >
    > > -Paul.

    >
    > Is it really necessary to weigh everything up against everything else in

    an
    > attempt to determine value?


    What Paul is overlooking (or intentionally ignoring) is the fact
    that like anything else, 'value' depends upon context.

    -Mike
     
    Mike Wahler, Aug 24, 2004
    #16
  17. Default User <> spoke thus:

    > Another stupid language war troll.
    > *plonk* Paul
    > *plonk* thread


    Agreed on both counts, although at least it wasn't crossposted.

    --
    Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
    ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
     
    Christopher Benson-Manica, Aug 24, 2004
    #17
  18. Paul

    Malcolm Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote
    >
    > See this post, C seems to be loosing here
    > Are we still programming in C, just b'cause those mortals find it easy
    > to develop a C compiler than C++ compiler. Considering C++ can do
    > every thing that C can and Vice Versa is not true. then why C?
    > I personally like C, C is good but C++ is great.
    >

    Firstly, you should be aware that this issue is constantly rehashed. However
    it is neither off-topic nor a FAQ (though it maybe should be), and it does
    raise a serious issue.

    Firstly a C compiler is much easier to write than a C++ compiler, but this
    isn't usually an issue. On a PC or similar platform a cheap C++ compiler is
    always already available, and even for an embedded system it is often not
    too difficult to adapt the GNU front-end.

    The British army was offered an automatic rifle which would fire bursts of
    bullets. This was rejected for a single-shot model. Why, you might ask? The
    reason is that, in combat, whilst sometimes it is advantageous to be able to
    fire a continuous burst, soldiers are likely to panic and waste ammunition.
    So the option was actually considered a disadvantage.

    The reason for rejecting C++ extensions is similar. There are times when
    they prove useful. However if you give programmers the option then you will
    often find that they play with the C++ language, trying out STL, or
    exception handling, or different ways of defining constructors.

    If you are doing an object-oriented design, then C++ is virtually necessary.
    However for many projects, a procedural design is much quicker to do than an
    object-oriented design, and much more natural. So it makes sense to reject
    the C++ extensions.
     
    Malcolm, Aug 24, 2004
    #18
  19. Paul

    Guillaume Guest

    > If you are doing an object-oriented design, then C++ is virtually necessary.

    It's not.
     
    Guillaume, Aug 25, 2004
    #19
  20. Paul

    Fredrik Tolf Guest

    On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 23:58 +0100, Malcolm wrote:
    > "Paul" <> wrote
    > >
    > > See this post, C seems to be loosing here
    > > Are we still programming in C, just b'cause those mortals find it easy
    > > to develop a C compiler than C++ compiler. Considering C++ can do
    > > every thing that C can and Vice Versa is not true. then why C?
    > > I personally like C, C is good but C++ is great.
    > >

    > If you are doing an object-oriented design, then C++ is virtually necessary.


    Certainly not. If you want proof of code in production state, just look
    at Linux's VFS code, or any GNOME program.

    Fredrik Tolf
     
    Fredrik Tolf, Aug 25, 2004
    #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.
Similar Threads
  1. nospam
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    616
    Guinness Mann
    Oct 7, 2003
  2. Bob
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,547
  3. Tim Churches
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    276
    Tim Churches
    Aug 10, 2005
  4. Alan Kennedy
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    341
    Alan Kennedy
    Sep 1, 2005
  5. Tony Meyer
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    316
    Mike Meyer
    Sep 2, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page