Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Two different Results between C and C++ Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 13:50:33 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 36 Message-ID: <87367dw5t2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <8c6495f9-6139-464e-ac8f-4eac27a92776@googlegroups.com> <60d0f73c-8588-4673-a48d-e5c4cc726196@googlegroups.com> <87blm1wam0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <2YxBG.61984$ZL6.32298@fx28.iad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2b720ada2beb0fb974b5f9a3cdd89767"; logging-data="8697"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YHn1xh6kacNlPafjdghwD" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:WyOxYlBDjxD2rvisUkLcPDIL3oc= sha1:QV4LpI8rNoQz9qyRshF9ducAaI0= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:152620 Richard Damon writes: > On 6/2/20 3:06 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> John Bode writes: >>> So yeah, I'm going to continue to emphasize that they are different languages >>> with different rules and behavior, regardless of how much they may have in >>> common. >> >> Sure, they're different languages, but why ignore their >> commonalities? The relationship between C and C++ is *very* >> different from the relationship between, say, C and Fortran. (I have >> no problem with *emphasizing* the fact that they're different >> languages, especially in the context of discussing good C code >> vs. good C++ code.) > > I think my answer to that argument is that there is a significant number > of programs that can be written in the subset of C that makes them also > valid C++ programs with essentially the same behavior to consider that > such a language exists (I suppose that would be called C/C++) I think you're agreeing with me, but the phrase "my answer to that argument" could imply otherwise. BTW, I wouldn't call that -- or anything -- "C/C++". That term has already been abused too much, sometimes by people who don't know what they're talking about. Perhaps "C∩C++"? (That's a set intersection symbol). > Such programs are not going to be totally idiomatic C (and certainly not > idiomatic C++). Agreed. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */