«

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=e...ing.google.com

-Paul.

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: m...
> 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=e...ing.google.com
>
> -Paul.

"Paul" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> 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=e...ing.google.com
>
> -Paul.

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

Please don't troll.

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.

"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: m...
> > 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=e...ing.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

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.

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 <> 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

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
================================================== =============================

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:. com...
>>
>>>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=e...ing.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