Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look

From	Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look
Date	2014-07-24 23:50 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<lqrv05$ocl$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<03303eb6-523d-4e95-ab0c-28e162ec2341@googlegroups.com><93a9602c-41b2-4fef-b915-06428d794172@googlegroups.com><lqq619$1hqg$1@adenine.netfront.net><c3clqrFmok1U1@mid.individual.net> <20140724173628.73bf30f5@laptop.homenet> <c3cu18FognpU1@mid.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

Op 24-Jul-14 19:28, Osmium schreef:
> I was trying to focus on one thing.  But since you brought it up, why did
> the C++ language need setjmp and longjmp?  As a matter of fact why did they
> need printf? Was the thought that <stdio.h> can be taught a minute ot so?
> C++ is a *language*, right?

The reason is that one of the design goals of C++ is to be (mostly) 
backwards compatible with existing C code. If setjmp() and longjmp() 
were removed, or printf() or the entire <stdio.h> were removed, many C 
programs would fail to compile on a C++ compiler.

I believe the backwards compatibility with C is one of C++ major 
strengths but also its major weakness. If they were to design a 
programming language from scratch with the same objectives as C++ but 
without backwards compatibility, I expect the result would be a much 
cleaner programming language.

Thread

The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look "K. Frank" <kfrank29.c@gmail.com> - 2014-07-16 08:06 -0700
  Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-07-16 16:12 -0700
    Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look "K. Frank" <kfrank29.c@gmail.com> - 2014-07-18 09:39 -0700
      Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-07-19 03:48 -0700
    Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-07-24 05:36 +0000
      Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-07-24 10:08 -0500
        Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2014-07-24 18:00 +0200
        Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2014-07-24 17:36 +0100
          Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-07-24 12:28 -0500
            Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-07-24 23:50 +0200
              Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-07-25 05:36 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-07-25 18:18 +0000
            Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2014-07-24 23:29 +0100
              Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2014-07-24 23:45 +0100
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-07-25 14:05 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-08-04 05:59 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-08-04 14:52 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-08-05 06:57 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-08-05 05:53 -0700
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Martijn Lievaart <m@rtij.nl.invlalid> - 2014-08-05 16:20 +0200
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-08-05 16:58 -0700
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-08-07 11:04 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-08-05 14:27 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-08-07 11:06 +0000
    Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2014-07-28 21:01 +0200
      Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-08-03 16:22 -0700

csiph-web