Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #7255

Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++

Path csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++
Date Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:45:30 +1200
Lines 35
Message-ID <971kopFfpqU6@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References <iucgg0$ej1$1@speranza.aioe.org> <4e0b8929$0$2851$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> <iug404$to$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
X-Trace individual.net GU0Zqx8v4hAK5MHHD0vbcg182WqnXm7WBZj/4415JBdRba7qDb
Cancel-Lock sha1:Wht8r02PAhQKoWLOZEzQ/ux5iqc=
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20101021 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4
In-Reply-To <iug404$to$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Xref x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c++:7255

Show key headers only | View raw


On 06/30/11 09:04 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>
> Well there are limits, and those limits are set by our brain. In the
> last resort, mere PEOPLE are using this language, and they just are
> now unable to understand ALL the implications of what they are
> doing when they write any serious program.

I have coached a number of C development teams int C++.  The first thing 
we do before committing to a project is a agree the language subset 
everyone in the team is happy with and initially stick to that.  Over 
time as the team's experience grows, so does the language subset they use.

One team was happy just to use C++ as a better C, no OO, just function 
overloading, references, proper const and a few other features (I'm sure 
you are familiar with these features!).  Another was happy to jump in 
boots first and use the kitchen sink.  Others chose a middle ground.

So reflecting on your agenda, C++ can and is used as C with the features 
you are keen to add.  It works well in that space which is why you meet 
so much opposition when proposing additions to C.

> The consequences are that C++ software is "brittle", in the sense that
> a small change somewhere, that everybody thought it would be harmless
> produces a whole series of catastrophes in other, unrelated parts
> of the software.

Not if it has a decent testing framework.

> It is not time to reflect about this problem?

In nigh on 20 years of developing C++ code and development teams, I 
haven't found this to be a problem.

-- 
Ian Collins

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-28 14:12 +0200
  Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-28 14:15 +0200
  Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-06-28 10:02 -0700
    Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-28 19:14 +0200
  Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-06-29 20:20 +0000
    Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-29 23:04 +0200
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 09:45 +1200
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-06-30 05:08 +0000
        Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-30 06:10 +0000
          Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 08:42 +0200
            Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 21:08 +1200
              Templates (was Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-30 15:03 +0000
                Re: Templates (was Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-06-30 16:40 +0000
                Re: Templates (was Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++) "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-06-30 22:06 -0500
                Re: Templates (was Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++) "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-06-30 22:05 -0500
            Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-06-30 10:45 +0000
              Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 16:09 -0700
            Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:39 -0700
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-30 06:32 +0000
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-06-30 10:49 -0700
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-01 10:20 +0200
        Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-02 08:14 +0200
  Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 23:56 -0700
  Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-07-07 16:39 +0000
    Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 18:55 +0200
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 16:48 -0500
        Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-08 01:29 +0200
          Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 19:13 -0500
      Re: Why C is vastly superior to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-07-08 06:57 +0000

csiph-web