Gary Labowitz said:
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.
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.
