«

On 10/23/2011 01:35 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:28:05 -0400, James Kuyper
....
>> ... I've heard that 'const',
>> 'volatile' and 'inline' were only added to C after borrowing them from
>> C++, though I can't personally vouch for the truth of that assertion.
....
> const and volatile were keywords in C89.

The rumored borrowing that I was talking about above was said to have
occurred before standardization of C89, but I would assume that it was
sometime after "C with Classes" evolved into "C++", in late 1983.

> ... wchar_t is a bit of a mix -
> it was a standard type in C89 (with one of the TCs), but not actually
> a keyword. inline was added to c99 (although it was a common
> extension).

Correct.
--
James Kuyper

On 10/23/11 10:28 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> ...
>> C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ...
>
> Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances - science fictional
> concepts like machines or drugs that implant information directly in
> your head come to mind. I doubt, however, that such speed learning is
> the norm in the real world.
>
> I was already very familiar with C when I first learned C++. I
> immediately recognized the value of many of the new features offered by
> C++. I have a long history of rapidly acquiring new computer languages,
> and the amount of time it took me to learn C++ is an example of that -
> but the amount of time was a lot longer than a single day. It took
> longer than that for me just to finish reading a detailed description of
> the new features.
>

I could see a person spending a day reading a tutorial on C++ for C
programmers and come away with enough to write some basic C++ programs.
They may be more using "C with Classes" then full C++. After all, it
probably only takes an hour or two to learn how to move from C to C that
is compatible with C++ (using prototypes, no implicit cast from void*,
avoid keywords like class, etc.). At that point you can almost claim to
be writing C++, add in a few basics like member functions and
inheritance, a few basic template rules, and you are then writing C++.
Maybe even have time for some simple stream I/O and it even starts to
look like basic C++.

In one day they aren't using much of STL, name spaces (except adding a
using namespace std or other advance features.

Richard Damon <> writes:

> On 10/23/11 10:28 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> ...
>>> C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ...
>>
>> Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances - science fictional
>> concepts like machines or drugs that implant information directly in
>> your head come to mind. I doubt, however, that such speed learning is
>> the norm in the real world.
>>
>> I was already very familiar with C when I first learned C++. I
>> immediately recognized the value of many of the new features offered by
>> C++. I have a long history of rapidly acquiring new computer languages,
>> and the amount of time it took me to learn C++ is an example of that -
>> but the amount of time was a lot longer than a single day. It took
>> longer than that for me just to finish reading a detailed description of
>> the new features.
>>
>
> I could see a person spending a day reading a tutorial on C++ for C
> programmers and come away with enough to write some basic C++
> programs. They may be more using "C with Classes" then full C++. After
> all, it probably only takes an hour or two to learn how to move from C
> to C that is compatible with C++ (using prototypes, no implicit cast
> from void*, avoid keywords like class, etc.). At that point you can
> almost claim to be writing C++, add in a few basics like member
> functions and inheritance, a few basic template rules, and you are
> then writing C++. Maybe even have time for some simple stream I/O and
> it even starts to look like basic C++.
>
> In one day they aren't using much of STL, name spaces (except adding a
> using namespace std or other advance features.

I had the experience of having students ask if they could turn in
assignments written in C++ instead of C, and receiving C programs with
iostreams.

Nick Keighley <> writes:

> On Oct 22, 3:57Â*pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
>> C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C.
>
> when! Stroustrup e1? I've been at it a decade or so and I don't
> consider myself completly familiar with C++. Template meta-programming
> anyone!

Agreed.

>> It only added five of six keywords.
>
> a damn sight more than that!
>
> this, public, private, protected, class, virtual, template, exception,
> catch, try, operator...

.... new, delete, true, false, friend, typename, typeid, using,
namespace, mutable, export, reinterpret_cast, const_cast, static_cast,
dynamic_cast, explicit, throw...

....and it significantly changed the meaning of auto.

I know you were not offering a fill list (and I doubt I have either) but
the point is better made if the list is fuller. The journey from C to
C++ has become quite an adventure. In the days if cfront, it was not
much more than a stroll in the park.

<snip>
--
Ben.

Nick Keighley <> writes:

> On Oct 22, 3:57Â*pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>> It only added five of six keywords.
>
> a damn sight more than that!
>
> this, public, private, protected, class, virtual, template, exception,
> catch, try, operator...

I don't think that "exception" is a keyword in C++.
--
int main(void){char p[]="ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuv wxyz.\
\n",*q="kl BIcNBFr.NKEzjwCIxNJC";int i=sizeof p/2;char *strchr();int putchar(\
);while(*q){i+=strchr(p,*q++)-p;if(i>=(int)sizeof p)i-=sizeof p-1;putchar(p[i]\
);}return 0;}

On 10/23/2011 02:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/23/11 10:28 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> ...
>>> C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ...
>>
>> Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances - science fictional
>> concepts like machines or drugs that implant information directly in
>> your head come to mind. I doubt, however, that such speed learning is
>> the norm in the real world.
....
> I could see a person spending a day reading a tutorial on C++ for C
> programmers and come away with enough to write some basic C++ programs.
> They may be more using "C with Classes" then full C++. After all, it
> probably only takes an hour or two to learn how to move from C to C that
> is compatible with C++ (using prototypes, no implicit cast from void*,
> avoid keywords like class, etc.). At that point you can almost claim to
> be writing C++, add in a few basics like member functions and
> inheritance, a few basic template rules, and you are then writing C++.
> Maybe even have time for some simple stream I/O and it even starts to
> look like basic C++.
>
> In one day they aren't using much of STL, name spaces (except adding a
> using namespace std or other advance features.

A statement that "I've learned C++" would not be justified by that level
of understanding..
--
James Kuyper

"Malcolm McLean" <> wrote in message
news:ef08ea76-a5ba-4886-8155-...
On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> ...
>>
> > C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ...
>>
> >Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances.
>
>I learnt it in a day. I bought a little book describing C++ for C
>programmers, and read it on the bus. By the time the bus journey had
>ended, I'd read the book and knew C++.
>
>However that was when it was still quite new, before it had ballooned
>into what it is now.

Almost anyone can pick up an acorn, but *not* after it growns into
a 200 foot oak tree!!!

"Malcolm McLean" <> wrote in message
news:ef08ea76-a5ba-4886-8155-...
On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> ...
>>
> > C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ...
>>
> >Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances.
>
>I learnt it in a day. I bought a little book describing C++ for C
>programmers, and read it on the bus. By the time the bus journey had
>ended, I'd read the book and knew C++.
>
>However that was when it was still quite new, before it had ballooned
>into what it is now.

Almost anyone can pick up an acorn, but *not* after it growns into
a 200 foot oak tree!!!

"Malcolm McLean" <> wrote in message
news:ef08ea76-a5ba-4886-8155-...
On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 10/22/2011 10:57 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> ...
>>
> > C++ could be learnt in a day by anyone who knew C. ...
>>
> >Perhaps it could, under the right circumstances.
>
>I learnt it in a day. I bought a little book describing C++ for C
>programmers, and read it on the bus. By the time the bus journey had
>ended, I'd read the book and knew C++.
>
>However that was when it was still quite new, before it had ballooned
>into what it is now.

Almost anyone can pick up an acorn, but *not* after it growns into
a 200 foot oak tree!!!


--
+<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>+
| Charles Richmond |
+<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>+

On Oct 24, 12:14*am, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > In one day they aren't using much of STL, name spaces (except adding a
> > using namespace std or other advance features.
>
> A statement that "I've learned C++" would not be justified by that level
> of understanding..
>
There weren't any templates or namespaces, and exception handling was
widely non-implemented.

Basically you were using C++ once you had an object hierarchy, and for
that you just needed "class" and "public, protected, private) together
with the base membership syntax. That was fundamentally it. The
operator overloaded IO stream library made programs look very
different to C, but was ultimately a distraction. inline, slash slash
comments, operator and references were just minor tweaks. The
difficult one was "virtual".