Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #85804 > unrolled thread
| Started by | NOSPAM.Alan.Beck@darkrealms.ca (Alan Beck) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-08-08 09:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2022-08-27 23:15 -0700 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 114 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
To C or not to C++ NOSPAM.Alan.Beck@darkrealms.ca (Alan Beck) - 2022-08-08 09:43 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-08 20:02 +0300
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-09 05:38 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Ralf Fassel <ralfixx@gmx.de> - 2022-08-09 11:07 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-10 02:25 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 17:52 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 21:39 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-10 07:45 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-10 19:50 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-10 13:13 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-11 04:29 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-10 02:41 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-10 07:39 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-10 10:11 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 08:23 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-12 12:12 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 14:41 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 12:09 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-13 10:28 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-13 09:37 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-12 15:55 +0300
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 14:43 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-12 18:07 +0300
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 15:14 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 12:11 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-13 09:38 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-13 17:56 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-24 11:32 +0300
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 11:33 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-24 04:37 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 13:31 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-24 14:09 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 15:31 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-24 14:38 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 15:57 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-24 10:41 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 21:48 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 07:34 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-25 11:29 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 04:14 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-25 12:36 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 05:16 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-25 17:16 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 20:35 +0200
[OT] Bad CS course, no cookie (Was: To C or not to C++) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-25 21:32 +0100
Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie (Was: To C or not to C++) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 23:16 +0200
Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-26 00:33 +0100
Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 10:39 +0200
Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-26 10:57 +0100
Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 12:49 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 19:56 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 10:47 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-26 02:48 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 13:02 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-26 04:57 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 14:55 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-26 06:20 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-27 18:44 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-28 11:30 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 10:06 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 10:32 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 11:36 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 20:47 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-26 03:11 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 09:21 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-25 12:58 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 10:23 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 20:51 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 12:14 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-24 13:56 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-24 17:18 +0300
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-24 14:25 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-12 16:46 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-15 06:16 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-15 19:01 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-08-15 22:22 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-16 08:48 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-16 19:19 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-16 12:56 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-17 18:47 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-17 14:49 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-18 14:49 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-19 03:10 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-08-18 22:12 -0400
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-18 20:08 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-19 10:39 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-17 06:45 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-17 18:48 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-16 19:16 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 12:03 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-10 10:13 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-11 04:25 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-11 01:03 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-11 08:11 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-11 13:53 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-13 04:13 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-13 21:13 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 12:29 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 13:12 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-14 00:44 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 02:54 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 12:12 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 16:22 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 17:49 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-13 03:16 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-13 09:08 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-08-15 14:44 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Ralf Fassel <ralfixx@gmx.de> - 2022-08-10 12:06 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-11 07:04 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 12:31 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-09 15:59 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2022-08-19 04:09 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 12:17 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-08-27 23:15 -0700
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-12 02:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <19c3945f-f9ef-44a1-a0f1-b80c39485fe3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85842 |
On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 05:26:05 UTC+3, Manfred wrote: > On 8/10/2022 10:13 AM, David Brown wrote: > > On 10/08/2022 02:25, Manfred wrote: ... > >> If you are writing code that compiles both as C and C++, then you are > >> in fact writing C code, not C++. > > > > That's just silly. You are, in fact, writing code that is C code /and/ > > C++ code. It might not be idiomatic code, but it is perfectly valid. > > Again, I disagree. And it is not silly. > > Let's take an example that makes some sense: you write some code that > involves a linked list (or any other container, for that matter) - > consider a C implementation and a C++ implementation. > > Are you seriously arguing that the C implementation is a C++ > implementation just as well? > (Please note that I /know/ that the C implementation would be legal C++ > code. I'm just saying that if you write such a C implementation in a C++ > program, then you are Doing It Wrong™) Within single product variant tree it is good idea to use clear absolutes and limits and compliances everywhere (like always, never, exactly one, up to 200, C++14). That helps everybody involved to focus and narrow what is done and how and under what constraints. There can be rather obvious reasons for such single product team to choose writing some program for some process of said product in common subset of for example C11 and C++11. So as result that program is indeed both C11 program and C++11 program. What is here even to argue? The code is unlikely to follow widespread idioms of programming in either programming language. But saying that whatever was therefore "done wrong" without being committed nor having clue what the product does is silly™. How can one even dream to be capable to judge adequately?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-12 12:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87h72he0nb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #85867 |
Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes:
[...]
> There can be rather obvious reasons for such single product team to
> choose writing some program for some process of said product in
> common subset of for example C11 and C++11. So as result that
> program is indeed both C11 program and C++11 program. What is
> here even to argue?
>
> The code is unlikely to follow widespread idioms of programming in
> either programming language. But saying that whatever was therefore
> "done wrong" without being committed nor having clue what the product
> does is silly™. How can one even dream to be capable to judge
> adequately?
I don't doubt that there can be valid reasons for writing code in the
common subset of C11 and C++11, but those reasons are not obvious.
Can you elaborate?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-12 16:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59ae77b4-69fe-4a69-b93d-c1c405fcdcd9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85897 |
On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 20:13:11 UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> writes: > [...] > > There can be rather obvious reasons for such single product team to > > choose writing some program for some process of said product in > > common subset of for example C11 and C++11. So as result that > > program is indeed both C11 program and C++11 program. What is > > here even to argue? > > > > The code is unlikely to follow widespread idioms of programming in > > either programming language. But saying that whatever was therefore > > "done wrong" without being committed nor having clue what the product > > does is silly™. How can one even dream to be capable to judge > > adequately? > I don't doubt that there can be valid reasons for writing code in the > common subset of C11 and C++11, but those reasons are not obvious. > Can you elaborate? > You can toggle the files between C and C++ by changing the extension. That can help if you're dealing with builds on many platforms. For instance, you can often compile the program with a simple cc *.c But what if you've got cpp files that are not also C files? Now, quite frequently, you've got to set up a build script to compile the c files, compile the cpp files, and then link them. And that build script is something that is liable to break. So instead rename the c files to cpp files, and it's CC *.cpp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-12 17:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f308371-ba3c-45f5-8aa7-115fcba460fbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85897 |
On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 22:13:11 UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote: > Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> writes: > [...] > > There can be rather obvious reasons for such single product team to > > choose writing some program for some process of said product in > > common subset of for example C11 and C++11. So as result that > > program is indeed both C11 program and C++11 program. What is > > here even to argue? > > > > The code is unlikely to follow widespread idioms of programming in > > either programming language. But saying that whatever was therefore > > "done wrong" without being committed nor having clue what the product > > does is silly™. How can one even dream to be capable to judge > > adequately? > I don't doubt that there can be valid reasons for writing code in the > common subset of C11 and C++11, but those reasons are not obvious. > Can you elaborate? Sure. I mean the reasons are for the product team obvious. These are not general reasons to use that common subset. Generally it is most likely waste of effort but for concrete project it is logical solution. I try to bring few examples that can make it obvious for them. One of target devices where the process runs may have some reason why C++ can't be used ... for example defective C++ runtime. C++ is more restrictive about some things (like type safety). Team is worried about those things. So they want to make it to build with C++ just as static analysis. There can be some tool in usage that reads code for some purpose and generates something but does not work with C features outside of common subset. There may be available collaborators (with very important domain knowledge) who are capable to learn that common subset quickly enough but whole C++ would take too lot of months.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Manfred <noname@add.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-13 03:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <td6u24$1uhr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #85901 |
On 8/13/2022 2:49 AM, Öö Tiib wrote: > On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 22:13:11 UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> writes: >> [...] >>> There can be rather obvious reasons for such single product team to >>> choose writing some program for some process of said product in >>> common subset of for example C11 and C++11. So as result that >>> program is indeed both C11 program and C++11 program. What is >>> here even to argue? >>> >>> The code is unlikely to follow widespread idioms of programming in >>> either programming language. But saying that whatever was therefore >>> "done wrong" without being committed nor having clue what the product >>> does is silly™. How can one even dream to be capable to judge >>> adequately? >> I don't doubt that there can be valid reasons for writing code in the >> common subset of C11 and C++11, but those reasons are not obvious. >> Can you elaborate? > > Sure. I mean the reasons are for the product team obvious. These are > not general reasons to use that common subset. Generally it is most > likely waste of effort but for concrete project it is logical solution. I > try to bring few examples that can make it obvious for them. > > One of target devices where the process runs may have some reason > why C++ can't be used ... for example defective C++ runtime. > C++ is more restrictive about some things (like type safety). Team is > worried about those things. So they want to make it to build with > C++ just as static analysis. > There can be some tool in usage that reads code for some purpose > and generates something but does not work with C features outside > of common subset. > There may be available collaborators (with very important domain > knowledge) who are capable to learn that common subset quickly > enough but whole C++ would take too lot of months. That's all fine, but if you are programming in the common subset of C and C++, then you are effectively programming in C, aren't you? I mean, practically: with respect to C, you are excluding at most 5% of the language; with respect to C++ you are excluding at least 60% of the language. Maybe I should make one thing clear, that I thought was in fact obvious: I didn't say, and I don't believe, that C++ programming is good, as opposed to C programming being bad, not at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-13 09:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d6154ac4-5dbb-4550-9f54-c68ce67cfe3cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85902 |
On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 04:17:14 UTC+3, Manfred wrote: > On 8/13/2022 2:49 AM, Öö Tiib wrote: > > On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 22:13:11 UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> writes: > >> [...] > >>> There can be rather obvious reasons for such single product team to > >>> choose writing some program for some process of said product in > >>> common subset of for example C11 and C++11. So as result that > >>> program is indeed both C11 program and C++11 program. What is > >>> here even to argue? > >>> > >>> The code is unlikely to follow widespread idioms of programming in > >>> either programming language. But saying that whatever was therefore > >>> "done wrong" without being committed nor having clue what the product > >>> does is silly™. How can one even dream to be capable to judge > >>> adequately? > >> I don't doubt that there can be valid reasons for writing code in the > >> common subset of C11 and C++11, but those reasons are not obvious. > >> Can you elaborate? > > > > Sure. I mean the reasons are for the product team obvious. These are > > not general reasons to use that common subset. Generally it is most > > likely waste of effort but for concrete project it is logical solution. I > > try to bring few examples that can make it obvious for them. > > > > One of target devices where the process runs may have some reason > > why C++ can't be used ... for example defective C++ runtime. > > C++ is more restrictive about some things (like type safety). Team is > > worried about those things. So they want to make it to build with > > C++ just as static analysis. > > There can be some tool in usage that reads code for some purpose > > and generates something but does not work with C features outside > > of common subset. > > There may be available collaborators (with very important domain > > knowledge) who are capable to learn that common subset quickly > > enough but whole C++ would take too lot of months. > > That's all fine, but if you are programming in the common subset of C > and C++, then you are effectively programming in C, aren't you? > I mean, practically: with respect to C, you are excluding at most 5% of > the language; with respect to C++ you are excluding at least 60% of the > language. You are right that it is closer to C than to C++ because C++ is just lot bigger programming language. It is trivially true. Why to name it C? It takes more effort than to program in C. There is little area of possible code that compiles on both but behavior will differ. Such code may not be used despite compilers are silent. Can say compatible subset or common subset as that causes less confusion. > > Maybe I should make one thing clear, that I thought was in fact obvious: > I didn't say, and I don't believe, that C++ programming is good, as > opposed to C programming being bad, not at all. Good. Usage of engineering tool is not good or bad, it is tool. Result can be good or bad, right or wrong, benevolent or evil but that does not depend on tool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-15 14:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86bksluqpu.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #85902 |
Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes: > [...] if you are programming in the common subset of C > and C++, then you are effectively programming in C, aren't you? In my experience programming in the common subset of C and C++ is much more like programming in an annoyingly braindamaged subset of C than it is like programming in C. > I mean, practically: with respect to C, you are excluding at most 5% > of the language; [...] Unfortunately excluding 5% of the language ends up excluding 95+% of the programs (and probably more for programs of any reasonable size). I think no C programmer naturally writes C programs that fall into the common subset of C and C++, except by accident, and that happens only rarely, and in small programs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ralf Fassel <ralfixx@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-10 12:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ygabkssmmzm.fsf@akutech.de> |
| In reply to | #85819 |
* Manfred <noname@add.invalid> | > On the Arduino, you usually only write the loop() (in C/C++) > | Note that the expression (C/C++) is considered a Bad Word nowadays. --<snip-snip>-- > | It may or may not be important to you, but if you show up at a job | interview talking about C/C++, you will effectively show up as someone | who does not know what they are talking about, so beware. Thanks for the hint. I indeed meant "C or C++" instead of implying C and C++ are somehow interchangeable. R', time to stop trying to save bandwidth, I guess .-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-11 07:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <td29le$qfa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #85819 |
Manfred <noname@add.invalid> wrote: > Note that the expression (C/C++) is considered a Bad Word nowadays. I think pointing that out is quite nitpicky. I believe the vast majority of people are using "C/C++" in a similar manner as they would use eg. "and/or". In other words, "C/C++" is simply shorthand for "C or C++ (inclusive)".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-09 12:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tctcuv$1c631$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #85804 |
Am 08.08.2022 um 09:43 schrieb Alan Beck: > > //Hello All,// > > I decided I wanted to learn C programming so I can solve problems with > software instead of hardware. > > I have an arduino and am learning it. > > > Shouod I be learing C,C++ or Arduino "sketch" language. > > I have books for all three.l > > Thand beforo hand You can program an Arduino with a limited C++-subset but I don't see any use in that because Arduino programs are always very small.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-09 15:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tcu09s$53d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #85811 |
On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 12:31:07 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >Am 08.08.2022 um 09:43 schrieb Alan Beck: >> >> //Hello All,// >> >> I decided I wanted to learn C programming so I can solve problems with >> software instead of hardware. >> >> I have an arduino and am learning it. >> >> >> Shouod I be learing C,C++ or Arduino "sketch" language. >> >> I have books for all three.l >> >> Thand beforo hand > >You can program an Arduino with a limited C++-subset but AFAIK the Arduino IDE just uses gcc with main() somehow built in already (anyone know how it does it, just an .h file include or something more?) and useful bits of C++ such as the STL left out because the binary wouldn't have a chance of fitting in the arduinos memory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-19 04:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55e68fad-e152-44be-b63a-779911f07e6en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85811 |
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:30:07 AM UTC+1, Bonita Montero wrote: > You can program an Arduino with a limited C++-subset but > I don't see any use in that because Arduino programs are > always very small. In my day job I program microcontrollers in C++. One is Arduino and the other is Texas Instruments. It's rare that there's something missing from the standard library that I need. I just write normal C++ code for these two microcontrollers. I have 512 kB for program code and constants, and 92 kB of RAM. So far I've been able to write pretty complicated programs and only use about a quarter of the memory available. Lately in my day job I'm writing C++ code to move galvoes to direct a laser beam to draw patterns on glass. Also if I did need more than 512 kB or 92 kB, I can connect a separate chip. (I can even use some of the onboard 512 kB as RAM if I want to).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-13 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <td8tcd$2t5t2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #85804 |
On 8/8/2022 9:43 AM, Alan Beck wrote: > > //Hello All,// > > I decided I wanted to learn C programming so I can solve problems with > software instead of hardware. > > I have an arduino and am learning it. > > > Shouod I be learing C,C++ or Arduino "sketch" language. > > I have books for all three.l > > Thand beforo hand Personally, I would learn C++ first even though I learned C first. Or, you can stage it. Learn C first, then C++. C gave me a foundation to understand the advantages of C++...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-27 23:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tef15d$id0f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #85804 |
On 8/8/2022 9:43 AM, Alan Beck wrote: > > //Hello All,// > > I decided I wanted to learn C programming so I can solve problems with > software instead of hardware. > > I have an arduino and am learning it. > > > Shouod I be learing C,C++ or Arduino "sketch" language. > > I have books for all three.l > > Thand beforo hand To C or not to C... Well, actually, I just might have to design a plugin interface and I would want C bindings. An end user can program a plugin in C, C++, C#, ect... I just need to design the C API and data-structures. So, I choose to use C for the raw plugin logic API.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web