Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #18824
| From | Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ |
| Date | 2014-10-19 10:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m20568.1ok.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de> (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> |
Paul Rubin wrote: > "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. They will do > stuff like automatic resizing and range checking, and they allow you to > use containers of multiple types without having to paste code all over > the place. The problem is that they do that automatic resizing out of your control. If you really got plenty of memory, and can heavily over-allocate, this will not be a problem. But in a high-availability system I don't want to run against a wall after 48 hours of uptime due to memory fragmentation. Being able to statically allocate my memory is a good thing in such an environment. To me, that's the main difference between desktop and embedded software: if desktop software crashes, you always have an operator who can restart it or maybe add another memory module. > OO on the other hand has become somewhat unfashionable in C++. OO is still a very convenient way to group things together. Just because you can do everything with abstract interfaces and factories doesn't mean you have to. Java doesn't have much extra cost for doing that (because calling a class method is expensive anyway), so people do it all the time. In C++, a class wrapping two ints can be as efficient as having just these two ints, without a pile of virtual methods in the way. Stefan
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