Why do some people prefer C over C++?

Gary R Wheeler

C is much simpler to learn. No object-oriented stuff, operator overloading, exceptions, etc. C++ offers vastly better facilities for software engineering a project. Namespaces, classes, etc. If you've ever maintained a 250,000 line code base in C (which I have), you'll understand. C and C++ are equally 'close' to the hardware. There are certain programming idioms that are more succinctly expressed in C++ than in C. There is no inherent performance disadvantage to C++ for many applications. Most things cited for this bit of FUD (exception handling, for example) are controllable with compiler options. If you don't use that feature, turn it off and its effect on performance is eliminated. Truth be told, I would not be surprised to find some C++ programs that are significantly faster than the corresponding C code, simply due to the fact that the compiler implements certain programming techniques in machine code in C++ that you would have to construct 'by hand' in C. I spent six years doing pure C development. I've spent the last ten years doing C++ work. Given a choice, I will always choose C++ over C.

Software Zen: delete this;

Fold With Us![^]

Marc Clifton

Because they're stupid. Marc

Thyme In The Country
Interacx
My Blog

Josh Smith

Marc Clifton wrote:

Because they're stupid.

:laugh: Wow, I didn't see that one coming!

:josh: My WPF Blog[^] The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it. - Michelangelo (1475-1564)

Christian Graus

Chris Austin wrote:

I think a lot of people approach C++ as being "just" C with OOP starting out.

Yeah, a lot of professors are old C programmers, who teach C with classes. That just makes it hard.

Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

Christian Graus

But, you can teach C++ by starting with the part that is C. That's totally the wrong way to teach it, and teaching it right makes C++ easier than C, IMO. Teaching C++ doesn't have to mean teaching the whole language, just enough to get people started. Then they can move on to templates, STL containers, iostreams, etc, once they have a firm grounding. C is easier because it's simpler, only if you assume that 'learn' means 'know every facet of the language'. As your comment above shows, many people use C++ and never learn how templates work, for example.

Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

martin_hughes

I really hate arguments about languages - it's all so thoroughly pointless as no one ever wins, and the arguments go on. And on. And on. If any of it really mattered, we'd all still be writing in machine code, or better yet we'd still be calculating stuff on an abacus. C or C++? Who cares? Use whatever you want to use (even VB6 if the feel takes you!), invent your own language if you like - just remember: your end user won't care one jot what language your programs are written in, all they want to know is a)does it do what they want, and b)how long it took you to deliver them.

"It was the day before today.... I remember it like it was yesterday." -Moleman

El Corazon

James Brown wrote:

not true, C will always be easier to learn because it is such a simple language

not true, because eventually you must follow on with storage mechanisms, pointers, pointers to functions, lists, trees, etc. Now you have added more complexity to C to keep up with the capability of C++, and have done it in inconsistant methodologies such that one C programmer has difficult understanding what another did -- and no consistency of performance, one list implimentation is not the same as another. Of course you could say, as long as no one writes anything complex, C is always the winner. Well :doh: I can write a hello world program in ASM more compact too, that doesn't mean it is the right tool for all jobs.

_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)

Gary R Wheeler

Go right ahead, make me feel like a pompous wind-bag :laugh:. Your answer is far more to the point.

Software Zen: delete this;

Fold With Us![^]

El Corazon

Gary R. Wheeler wrote:

Go right ahead, make me feel like a pompous wind-bag

my posts were twice the size of yours... if he makes you a pompous wind-bag, what extreme does that make me????

_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)

cp9876

Because they don't want to use object oriented design. My experience in complex projects is that C++ used well results in great code, as fast as C, developed in less time and is far easier to maintain. C++ is also much more fun than C - even when producing great code. Having to develop everything in C is a nightmare scenario! However, developing the skills to use C++ well takes much longer than learning to use C, and I have seen some people who I believe will never make good OO designers. I have seen people with poor C++ skills produce code that is much more obscure than C, is much slower and almost impossible to maintain. It would have been almost impossible to write programs that badly in C, simply because C++ gave them more features to misuse. C++ is a fantastic tool in the hands of a skilled craftsman.

Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."

El Corazon

Josh Smith wrote:

Because they have never tried C#. :josh puts on fireproof body suit:

you should have reversed the order there.... ;P If someone had been faster, they could have got you good.... ;P

_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)

James Brown

sorry sunshine, but no matter what way you look at things, C is a simpler language and is therefore easier to learn. libraries/data structures are irrelevant and never formed a part of my argument.

http://www.catch22.net

El Corazon

Christian Graus wrote:

"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax"

I just read this.... :doh::doh::omg: That's like seeing... "I am starting a project in 3D graphics for a game... what is 3D graphics?" :doh:

_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)

Josh Smith

El Corazon wrote:

If someone had been faster, they could have got you good....

Lucky me!! :laugh:

:josh: My WPF Blog[^] The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it. - Michelangelo (1475-1564)

El Corazon

James Brown wrote:

libraries/data structures are irrelevant and never formed a part of my argument

But they are an integral part of WRITING code. Learning the language is only the first step. You are implying that as long as no one ever writes in C, C is always easier to learn. Well... true, but irrelevant, since eventually someone MUST write in it.

_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)

Mark Salsbery

:laugh::laugh::laugh: After so many pompous, wind-bag, 5-worthy posts, that I couldn't decide which to give 5s to you hit it right on the nose! LMAO! El and Gary - Just kidding ;P Mark

Mark Salsbery Microsoft MVP - Visual C++ :java:

El Corazon

James Brown wrote:

Also the many implicit behaviours and side-effects that can be introduced by the most innocent of statement.

the same can be said of pointers and defines, etc, which are a part of C. In fact templates suffer the same issues of writing with defines, only offer some design refinements. Classes are a pointer table of methods which can be written in C, but with greater risk. You can make C completely unreadable too, but it doesn't prove C is evil, it only tells about the programmer. Not knowing C++, of course it would make it unreadable, but knowing C++ well makes it very readable and much more stable.

_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)

James Brown

Your suggestions that C++ can be taught wrongly, although valid, has no relevance to the point being argued that I can see - C and C++ are different beasts and should be taught in isolation of each other, you will of course agree with this. And I made no comment that people use C++ and never learn templates. Are you implying that *I* am in that category? 'Know every facet'.....hmmm well, semantic arguments will lead nowhere. How about 'learn 10% of each language'? The simple fact remains, C is a simpler language than C++, it is far smaller and is easier to learn because of this.

http://www.catch22.net

James Brown

El Corazon wrote:

You are implying that as long as no one ever writes in C, C is always easier to learn. Well... true, but irrelevant, since eventually someone MUST write in it

No, I implied nothing of the sort. get over it.

http://www.catch22.net

James Brown

pointers used within the constraints of the language have no side-effects, and they are also part of C++. #defines, macros, likewise.

El Corazon wrote:

but knowing C++ well makes it very readable and much more stable.

This is a nonsense argument. Knowing C well also makes it very readable and much more stable. So what?

http://www.catch22.net