From the standard

This is a discussion on From the standard within the C# Programming forums, part of the General Programming Boards category; That just backs up what I've been stating, and since we're quoting Stroustrup - Considering C a smaller, faster, and ...

  1. #16
    S­énior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    982
    That just backs up what I've been stating, and since we're quoting Stroustrup -

    Considering C a smaller, faster, and better specified alternative to C++ is another popular fallacy. The C-like subset of C++ is as fast, as well specified, and easier to deal with than C itself. One source of popularity of this fallacy is an unwillingness by some C/Pascal-level programmers not to learn something really new. Another is wishful thinking by some proponents of more advanced languages: after all, if C++ is simply a more complicated C it cannot be a serious competitor to a more advanced language.

  2. #17
    Banned Troll_King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,784
    Yes, that previous post was a positive for C++, however C and C++ have been growing apart. They have separate standards. To say that C++ is a superset of C is also a myth. C has moved on to improve its low level functionality while C++ has striven to improve it's STL.

  3. #18
    S­énior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    982
    >C has moved on to improve its low level functionality

    How?

    It's true C has moved on from when C with Classes was concieved, mainly due to the most recent C standard. However, it's an aim of the C++ standards commitee to bring them closer together and the new C++ standard will require as much of C99 be implemented in C++ as possible (if it's ever implemented in a C compiler ).

    The standard commitees don't work in entire ignorance of what the other is doing, and features added by C99 were to some extent chosen so that they would also be easily included in future implementations of C++.

  4. #19
    Banned Troll_King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,784
    They are moving apart. I'll look for the article. I read it on Bjorne's web site.

  5. #20
    S­énior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    982
    This was stated by Herb Sutter (Secretary of the ISO/ANSI C++ standards committee) -

    C99: The second official ISO/ANSI C Standard, published in 1999. This standard contains much that the C++ committee can be expected to adopt wholesale, or with minor modifications, as part of C++0x. After all, it's clear that the C++ committee values C compatibility, and the C committee has helped us by likewise valuing C++ compatibility, which has made some of C99's features easier to integrate into C++0x than they might otherwise have been. There are still some C99 features, however, that C++0x cannot easily adopt in their C99 form, because conflicting facilities already exist in C++98 (for example, complex is a class template in C++98 and a keyword in C99).

  6. #21
    Banned Troll_King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,784
    see below
    Last edited by Troll_King; 02-19-2002 at 06:00 PM.

  7. #22
    Banned Troll_King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,784

    LinuxWorld.com: With the ratification of the new C99 standard, C/C++ compatibility seems more evasive than ever before. Is backward compatibility with C still one of the goals of C++? If so, what should be done to minimize the gaping chasms between the two languages?

    Bjarne Stroustrup: C99 focused on extending the low-level facilities of C in the area of numeric programming. It basically ignored the abstraction facilities and the aims of generality embodied in C++. This makes compatibility harder as C adds more ad hoc, special-purpose facilities, where C++ addresses the same programmer needs through libraries implemented using general-purpose language facilities. An example is C99 variable-length arrays vs. C++'s vector. A more coordinated evolution of the two languages would have avoided this split.

    My ideal is still a single language, and it is still technically feasible to merge C++ and C99 into a single, reasonably coherent language. I think such a language could meet every rational technical requirement. However, I'm not sure that the political will is there. For starters, it would require a merger of the C and C++ standards committees; it is not possible to have two different groups of people evolving two languages in parallel. Each committee attracts people who don't share the ideals of the majority of the other and who dislike compromising with that majority. Thus, whereas a single committee fosters a shared community, trust, and compromise, two committees provide opportunities for divergence and for ignoring inconvenient facts and opinions. Personally, I think the committees should work out an agreement to merge, and then merge in good time before the ISO C++ standard comes up for renewal. The result would be a better language and a much stronger community.
    On BS's Website.
    Last edited by Troll_King; 02-19-2002 at 06:04 PM.

  8. #23
    S­énior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    982
    >LinuxWorld.com

    See quote from Herb Sutter.

    >Bjarne Stroustrup

    I wouldn't be suprised if variable-length arrays were included in the next C++ standard, along with much of the other C99 extras (again see quote by Herb Sutter), some of which was added from C++ in the first place.

    That leaves the in-built complex,imaginary and bool types. Unless your doing scientific programming I'd hardly call the first two a gaping chasm (in any case there's already support through the C++ library which would make porting trivial), and C++ already has its own built in bool type.

  9. #24
    Banned Troll_King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,784
    I don't see a chasm, just a schism.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Bug in iterator comparison in C++ standard?
    By steev in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-12-2008, 01:02 AM
  2. Abstract Base Class and References
    By Thantos in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-13-2004, 02:35 PM
  3. im extreamly new help
    By rigo305 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-24-2004, 12:22 AM
  4. include question
    By Wanted420 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-17-2003, 04:49 AM
  5. standard language, standard compiler?
    By doubleanti in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-03-2001, 05:21 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21