Why do some people prefer C over C++?

[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

[Lost User]

James Brown wrote:

all the object-oriented trappings

Including Prolog and Smalltalk?

Visit http://www.readytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.

[Lost User]

In industry you will often find C being used for legacy reasons or in small systems where the tools don't support C++ so well.

Visit http://www.readytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.

[Ed Poore]

A pompous hot-air balloon a.k.a. a politician :shudder: :suss:

---

My Blog[^]

[Christian Graus]

James Brown wrote:

C and C++ are different beasts and should be taught in isolation of each other, you will of course agree with this.

Yes, absolutely. The main issue with C++ is that this rarely happens, C is taught and classes are added.

James Brown wrote:

And I made no comment that people use C++ and never learn templates. Are you implying that *I* am in that category?

You made a comment above about templates being too confusing, I thought. If I misread, then no insult was intended, I just thought you'd already said that.

James Brown wrote:

The simple fact remains, C is a simpler language than C++, it is far smaller and is easier to learn because of this

The fact remains that given a *specific* task, C is no easier to learn to perform that task, it simply is less powerful and offers less options in terms of ways to approach it. If pure C code is the best way to tackle a specific problem, then you can write that code in C++. What you said is correct tho, it's what I said. C is smaller, and therefore easier to learn, only if you're talking about how long it would take to learn it completely. An example: I want a program which takes a persons name as text input, then outputs 'Hello, ' followed by the name. Which is easier to teach, memory management in C to create a char *, or iostreams code in C++ which uses the string class ?

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 )