Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #18821
| Path | csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> |
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ |
| Date | Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:34:51 +0100 |
| Lines | 66 |
| Message-ID | <cahbdfFp8kcU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <543ead04$0$15847$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl><m1mmar.23s.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de><caf18hF6lueU1@mid.individual.net> <7x4mv1tdyv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| X-Trace | individual.net aKAUSqDga1j/yB+spHy0rAn4Zqf+scL+9wnb4ZZTWZILbnvu2i |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:W/Rc8SOxHx9loXDOLcNFSDPmnns= |
| In-Reply-To | <7x4mv1tdyv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| X-Priority | 3 |
| X-MSMail-Priority | Normal |
| Importance | Normal |
| X-Newsreader | Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 |
| X-MimeOLE | Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.arch.embedded:18821 |
Show key headers only | View raw
"Paul Rubin" <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:7x4mv1tdyv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> My C++ experience is limited to the embedded environment and I'm up to >> speed on creating OO class structures but not much else. I don't do >> standard library stiff (just like I don't carry the C library manual >> around in my head), streams or containers. These things don't seem to >> have much place low level embedded code, but if you believe different >> fell free to explain why > > If you mean STL containers, yes they are useful in all but the smallest > environments and (to a limited extent) even in those. define "useful" the syntax is awful - completely unintelligible to someone who has never seen it before (and sometimes even if you have) and for what: to save me writing a discrete function to perform the task > They will do > stuff like automatic resizing Do you mean between types. In a small embedded system who cares? I'm going to be using bools, 8 bit bytes and 16 or 32 bit words. Occasionally I might need floating point arithmetic for precision, but I'm (almost) never going to need to "output" those, I don't have the means to do so. > and range checking big deal >, and they allow you to > use containers of multiple types without having to paste code all over > the place. OO on the other hand has become somewhat unfashionable in > C++. but I won't have enough types for this to be a problem > I think it's sufficient to just get a recent C++ book as STL is not > really hard to use. No it's not hard to use, but it is like 1000 discrete facts long. And the tests always ask you about the most obscure ones. I have sufficient knowledge in my head to use the C library without looking at the book in my day job. But whenever I've done C tests they always pick on a function that you have used once (or never) > cppreference.com is also pretty good. And if it > was an online test you took, unless it said otherwise I'd think it was > ok to use reference materials while taking the test. at 2 minutes per question you don't have enough time for more that a cursory glance tim
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 19:21 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-15 10:36 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 19:48 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-15 21:25 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 23:28 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-15 23:40 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-15 10:58 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-15 21:03 +0300
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-15 11:11 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 20:26 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-15 20:44 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 23:30 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-16 18:19 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2014-10-16 23:12 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2014-10-17 13:25 +0800
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-17 18:43 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-18 12:29 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-18 11:44 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-18 22:25 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-18 15:42 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-19 11:03 +0300
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2014-10-19 17:46 -0500
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-19 16:28 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-10-20 02:47 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-19 09:34 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-19 17:00 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 08:50 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 11:57 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 12:11 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-20 22:36 +0300
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2014-10-21 00:36 +0000
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 08:52 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 11:56 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-19 10:52 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-19 17:16 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-18 23:02 +0000
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-19 09:45 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-15 22:12 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 23:35 +0200
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-15 19:10 -0700
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2014-10-16 10:34 +0300
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-16 10:10 +0100
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2014-10-16 01:06 -0500
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid - 2014-10-16 08:32 +0000
Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-16 20:54 +0200
csiph-web