Thread: C better than C++? (POLL)

That is kinda like comparing a screwdriver with a spanner - different tools for different jobs.

And I am confused as to why not being owned by Microsoft is a both a pro and a con - and also why this thread is not in the general area where it is probably more appropriate seeing as though there is very little code being discussed here...

Oh and so what if it is/was the US national standard - how is that a pro for the billions of people who don't live in the US?

>Is C better than C++

There's no such as a language being better then the other.

>Pro's of C: <...> not owned by Microsoft
>Con: <...> Not owned by Microsoft

:-)

Some notes:
The GCC package also contains a C++ compiler.
C++ is also standardised.

It is not an disadvantage of C that it is not very object oriented. If you design your programs non-object oriented, then you don't need an object oriented language.

C and C++ are both portable if you write standard C and standard C++ code.

[edit]
You forgot the option: there's no better.
[/edit]

Okay... let's analyse this question and make sure we know what we're all talking about before we begin. The question, as asked, is:

"C better than C++?"

Well, first thing - what do you mean by C and C++? In particular, the only canonical definitions of the language which are widely accepted by 'those in the know' are commonly referred to as ISO C99 and ISO C++ 98. I will assume that this is what was meant - these documents are the most recently published international standards for said languages and are not subject to the mishandling of compiler writers. (In fact, there are very few conforming C++ compilers out there AFAIK, though progress is, and has, been made since ISO C++ 98 was published. The same is true of ISO C99, but it's predecessor ANSI(/ISO?) C89 is widely supported.)

The hard bit: what do you mean by better?

Here's my take. The purpose of programming language is to allow programs to be developed more efficiently in terms of time and cost. The real objective is to reduce the time and cost of completing some project or task whether it's a personal project, a group collaboration for the public good or part of a profit making plan. So, 'better' programming languages allow programmers to develop software as part of the project faster and cheaper. The 'best' programming language then is the one which is yields greater productivity.

Now... here's the next problem. How do you measure how productive programmers are with a given language? That's not a trivial exercise, and the results are not going to be easy to generalise. In fact, I find C 'better' than C++ for many programming projects because I can achieve the project goals in less time and using fewer resources. Sometimes, C++ is 'better' for the task at hand.

Importantly, the level of proficiency of the programmer in question is very important. If a programmer knows C++ well and has only a passing acquantance with C then obviously C++ is 'better' for them. Likewise, the other way around is equally valid.

So... do you /really/ mean to ask the question "Is C better than C++?". If so, then surely the only reasonable answer is "depends."

I find the whole "Language X" vs "Language Y" discussions quite tiresome and very unproductive. Afterall, all you need is one zealot on either side and a lot of people get quite offended!

Ian Woods

...
I prefer c over c++, reason:

1. c isn't object oriented
2. I like the low levelness of c. /* I know levelness isn't a word! */
3. c if you ask me has a lot more potential the c++, /* why do you think its the crackers/hackers language. (other then asm) */
4. I prefer low level programming more then I prefer high level programming!
5. And if you ask me, its not so damn confusing when, you've programmed thousands of lines into a program!

>The purpose of programming language is to allow programs to
>be developed more efficiently in terms of time and cost.

That is from a managers point of view. But from a technicians point of view: the purpose of a programming language is to be able to develop software in such a way that it meets system requirements.

This means that in a lot of situations you don't depend on just one language, but use more languages. A small example: a mobile phone project. The very low level stuff is written in assembly (OS level and below OS level), the low level stuff is written in C and C++ (OS level) and the high level stuff is written in Java (application level / GUI level).

>How do you measure how productive programmers are with a
>given language?

The PSP has shown to be a quite good tool for measuring the productivity of programmers in different languages.

>In fact, I find C 'better' than C++ for many programming projects
>because I can achieve the project goals in less time and using
>fewer resources. Sometimes, C++ is 'better' for the task at
>hand.

It also depends on the design and underlying architecture. If these are object oriented, C++ would be 'better'.

>2. I like the low levelness of c.

C++ is as low level as C. It just depends on how you write your software.

>3. c if you ask me has a lot more potential the c++,

In fact C++ has more potential. It is not only possible to write procedural C code, but also object oriented C++ code. Note that C++ is based on C.

Surely, since you can use every C-command in a C++ program, C++ is better.

This is a ridiculous thread because:

a.) both languages are C at their core.
b.) the people who are posting their opinions solidly are people who are not very experienced with C AND C++.
c.) there have been countless topics with the exact same purose that have gotten fairly no where.

Nobody can look at 2000 pages of code in any language and be able to understand it. That's why there is a UML.

Clyde, there IS C code that is not C++ code. It is possible to write perfectly legal C that won't compile in C++.