Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation

Reply
Thread Tools

Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation

 
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2011
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard Damon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2011
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joe Pfeiffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2011
Richard Damon <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Bacarisse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2011
Nick Keighley <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Oct 22, 3:57*pm, Malcolm McLean <(E-Mail Removed)>
> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Pfaff
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2011
Nick Keighley <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Oct 22, 3:57*pm, Malcolm McLean <(E-Mail Removed)>
> 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;}
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2011
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Charles Richmond
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2011
"Malcolm McLean" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> 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!!!




 
Reply With Quote
 
Charles Richmond
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2011
"Malcolm McLean" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> 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!!!




 
Reply With Quote
 
Charles Richmond
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2011
"Malcolm McLean" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) |
+<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>+



 
Reply With Quote
 
Malcolm McLean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2011
On Oct 24, 12:14*am, James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> 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".


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: RIP Dennis Ritchie Lynn McGuire C++ 12 10-18-2011 08:35 AM
Dennis Ritchie Has Died Bradley K. Sherman C Programming 28 10-18-2011 04:44 AM
Query from Dennis Ritchie C learner C Programming 6 04-04-2011 05:44 PM
Errata for The C Programming Language, Second Edition, by Brian Kernighanand Dennis Ritchie Ioannis Vranos C Programming 4 05-16-2009 03:48 PM
What is this noalias thing Dennis Ritchie is railing about ? Spiros Bousbouras C Programming 22 09-13-2007 09:28 AM



Advertisments