New here, just sayin 'hi'

argv · 05-24-2009, 05:29 PM

Hello, I'm argv. Just saying 'hello' to everyone.

I will probably stop in with some stupid questions once in a while, perhaps the occasional smart question, and just discussion.

I'm currently taking programming classes at a community college. I'm taking regular beginning "c" right now, and am trying to decide whether to take advanced "c" or go right into C++. I want to have a good grasp of the procedural language before going to the OOP stuff, even though "c" programming is all but dead. I dunno..

I also work with autocad and use (a very small amount) of visual basic and (alot) of LISP language.

anyways, thanks,

argv.

Cactus_Hugger · 05-24-2009, 05:34 PM

Welcome to the boards.

Quote:

even though "c" programming is all but dead.

Don't under-estimate C! It used to be my language at heart, until I found std::string in C++. However, that said, there are still places where C is used. Drivers, and other areas close to the kernel of an OS, are generally C, and many embedded systems only have C compilers available.
Many libraries out there are written completely in C as well.

matsp · 05-24-2009, 05:42 PM

Welcome to CBoard.

I don't agree that C is dead. It may not be the language of the future, but C I have been working on commercial C code written in the last year or two. A lot of driver-code for all sorts of OS's is written in C. And the company I work for produces an embedded C++ OS - the reason I work in C more than C++ is that the drivers for graphics devices in the embedded systems are often written to work in several different OS's, and thus written in C rather than C++.

Whilst the process of getting the job done is a bit different between C++ and C, there is also a lot of commonality. So learning C first and then going C++ is certainly not a waste of effort.

--
Mats

MK27 · 05-24-2009, 05:59 PM

The linux kernel: C
The Perl interpreter, and AFAIK *most* scripting languages: C
openGL: C
and as I noticed today, directX: C [correction, directX is MS-COM, not C]
Rumour has it the *fastest* *most efficient* language: C

But I am kind of a charlatan who intends to learn C++...later, maybe. For what it's worth, I would say follow your interests.

Also (somebody correct me if I am wrong), I believe most embedded programming is probably in C. Which if you think about what that means, it would be very far from "dead".

In any case, hi argv, cboard is the best website on the internet -- congratulations.

matsp · 05-24-2009, 06:11 PM

The C is faster than C++ is a myth. Most of the time this comes about from inexperienced programmers writing poor code (e.g. passing large class objects by value, which means the structure gets copied when the function is called). In C, the only way to copy a large amount of data when calling a function is by passing large structs by value. C++ has many more possibilities, since C++ also allows complex classes as well as the old-fashioned struct types.

C++ is also a much richer language, so there is more room for getting it wrong.

But given sufficient skill in the programmer, there should be no or littel difference between C and C++ - and in some cases, C++ is actually able to solve the problem in a very neat way.

--
Mats

happyclown · 05-24-2009, 07:27 PM

Welcome to the forum, argv!

cpjust · 05-24-2009, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27

Rumour has it the *fastest* *most efficient* language: C

Try comparing the speed of qsort() to std::sort() and see which one wins.

MK27 · 05-24-2009, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpjust

Try comparing the speed of qsort() to std::sort() and see which one wins.

Why does everyone always want to take the air out of my balloon?!!? Anyway, qsort is for quacks. That's why it's called qsnort, dope.

I would imagine the essence of speed is in the compiler, not obscure add on libraries.

Elysia · 05-25-2009, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27

and as I noticed today, directX: C

Also, DirectX is not C. It's COM.

Akkernight · 05-25-2009, 07:59 AM

I heard they are working on and have made some progress on making the DirectX code into C++ code, dunno if this is true tho...
And to the topic starter's question, I'll always suggest C++, but I'm not one of the clever ones so I dunno what's best for you

argv · 05-25-2009, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matsp

Welcome to CBoard.

I don't agree that C is dead. It may not be the language of the future, but C I have been working on commercial C code written in the last year or two. A lot of driver-code for all sorts of OS's is written in C. And the company I work for produces an embedded C++ OS - the reason I work in C more than C++ is that the drivers for graphics devices in the embedded systems are often written to work in several different OS's, and thus written in C rather than C++.

Whilst the process of getting the job done is a bit different between C++ and C, there is also a lot of commonality. So learning C first and then going C++ is certainly not a waste of effort.

--
Mats

That is true. I guess I should say that for what *i* plan to do with programming, C isn't going to be of much use. However, it would never be a waste of time to learn such a rich and open language. Besides, I forgot about hardware drivers. Cool, I'm glad C isn't dead. thats a good thing.

argv · 05-25-2009, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27

The linux kernel: C
The Perl interpreter, and AFAIK *most* scripting languages: C
openGL: C
and as I noticed today, directX: C [correction, directX is MS-COM, not C]
Rumour has it the *fastest* *most efficient* language: C

But I am kind of a charlatan who intends to learn C++...later, maybe. For what it's worth, I would say follow your interests.

Also (somebody correct me if I am wrong), I believe most embedded programming is probably in C. Which if you think about what that means, it would be very far from "dead".

In any case, hi argv, cboard is the best website on the internet -- congratulations.

Thanks.

The only thing that is NOT good about C, is obviously the lack of OOP concept. I can use C++ libraies at my job to control autocad, but can't with C unfortunately. Thats all I'm saying I guess.

argv · 05-25-2009, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cactus_Hugger

Welcome to the boards.

Don't under-estimate C! It used to be my language at heart, until I found std::string in C++. However, that said, there are still places where C is used. Drivers, and other areas close to the kernel of an OS, are generally C, and many embedded systems only have C compilers available.
Many libraries out there are written completely in C as well.

haha.. nice name. [cactus_hugger]. Uhm, yes. true. I'm glad to see so many dedicated C fans, thats encouraging.

ಠ_ಠ · 05-25-2009, 01:00 PM

Welcome!

have you read your SICP today?

05-24-2009, 05:29 PM	#1
argv Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 25	New here, just sayin 'hi' Hello, I'm argv. Just saying 'hello' to everyone. I will probably stop in with some stupid questions once in a while, perhaps the occasional smart question, and just discussion. I'm currently taking programming classes at a community college. I'm taking regular beginning "c" right now, and am trying to decide whether to take advanced "c" or go right into C++. I want to have a good grasp of the procedural language before going to the OOP stuff, even though "c" programming is all but dead. I dunno.. I also work with autocad and use (a very small amount) of visual basic and (alot) of LISP language. anyways, thanks, argv.
argv is offline

05-24-2009, 05:42 PM	#3
matsp Kernel hacker Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Farncombe, Surrey, England Posts: 15,686	Welcome to CBoard. I don't agree that C is dead. It may not be the language of the future, but C I have been working on commercial C code written in the last year or two. A lot of driver-code for all sorts of OS's is written in C. And the company I work for produces an embedded C++ OS - the reason I work in C more than C++ is that the drivers for graphics devices in the embedded systems are often written to work in several different OS's, and thus written in C rather than C++. Whilst the process of getting the job done is a bit different between C++ and C, there is also a lot of commonality. So learning C first and then going C++ is certainly not a waste of effort. -- Mats __________________ Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them! Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.
matsp is offline

05-24-2009, 05:59 PM	#4
MK27 critical genius Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: SE Queens Posts: 5,158	The linux kernel: C The Perl interpreter, and AFAIK most scripting languages: C openGL: C and as I noticed today, directX: C [correction, directX is MS-COM, not C] Rumour has it the fastest most efficient language: C But I am kind of a charlatan who intends to learn C++...later, maybe. For what it's worth, I would say follow your interests. Also (somebody correct me if I am wrong), I believe most embedded programming is probably in C. Which if you think about what that means, it would be very far from "dead". In any case, hi argv, cboard is the best website on the internet -- congratulations. __________________ "A man can't just sit around." -- Larry Walters Last edited by MK27; 05-25-2009 at 07:31 AM.
MK27 is offline

05-24-2009, 06:11 PM	#5
matsp Kernel hacker Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Farncombe, Surrey, England Posts: 15,686	The C is faster than C++ is a myth. Most of the time this comes about from inexperienced programmers writing poor code (e.g. passing large class objects by value, which means the structure gets copied when the function is called). In C, the only way to copy a large amount of data when calling a function is by passing large structs by value. C++ has many more possibilities, since C++ also allows complex classes as well as the old-fashioned struct types. C++ is also a much richer language, so there is more room for getting it wrong. But given sufficient skill in the programmer, there should be no or littel difference between C and C++ - and in some cases, C++ is actually able to solve the problem in a very neat way. -- Mats __________________ Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them! Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.
matsp is offline

05-24-2009, 07:27 PM	#6
happyclown In my head Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: In my head Posts: 327	Welcome to the forum, argv! __________________ M$ rules! Turns towards Redmond and bows
happyclown is offline

05-25-2009, 07:59 AM	#10
Akkernight Hail to the king, baby. Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Faroe Islands Posts: 718	I heard they are working on and have made some progress on making the DirectX code into C++ code, dunno if this is true tho... And to the topic starter's question, I'll always suggest C++, but I'm not one of the clever ones so I dunno what's best for you __________________ Currently research OpenGL
Akkernight is offline

05-25-2009, 01:00 PM	#14
ಠ_ಠ Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 533	Welcome! have you read your SICP today? __________________ ╔╗╔══╦╗ ║║║╔╗║║ ║╚╣╚╝║╚╗ ╚═╩══╩═╝
ಠ_ಠ is offline

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode