Another esbo thread hijack trying to start a flame war

[laserlight]

Anyay this discussion arose when I gave an example in C but was informed C++ was required, however C is a part of C++ is it not??

As I noted, C is not quite a subset of C++. The C++ standard refers to the 1990 edition of the C standard in several areas, including the part of the C++ standard library inherited from C, but nonetheless incompatibilities remain. The 1999 edition of the C standard eliminates some of these incompatibilities while introducing others.

Further more if you also require the code to be highly efficient you are probably going to use C. You can also use assembler, but C is not that far off assember anyway.

C++ can be used in such cases. The C++ standard library is designed to be efficient, and it is possible to dip down into assembler if necessary, or at least write some speed critical portions of code in a C style if that proves to be more efficient in that case.

[Elysia]

Yes I believe vector is apelt a-r-r-a-y in C, one less letter, so it is more eficient
Also the term actually describes what it is rather than use a word which describes something totally different.
In the old days a fire was called a fire, now it's called a spoon, thats progress for you.
No problems with that part from a few burnt lips.

Careful there. An array is not a vector or vice versa.
A vector is a dynamic array that will automatically expand (reallocate) when there is not enough room. Due to this, there may be some overhead.
If you want to compare C to C++, compare arrays to std::tr1::array instead.

Nore are Microsoft apparently
As you and I have said before you can write large unmaintainable and unreliable software in any language. Such problems are generated by the programmers, not the language.
Further more if you also require the code to be highly efficient you are probably going to use C. You can also use assembler, but C is not that far off assember anyway.

Anyone can write unmaintainable and poor code in any language, true, but the idea is that newer languages give you new and better tools to work with so you can avoid mistakes and write better code.
Well-written C++ code is more maintainable than equivalent C code. That's because in C there were problems, and to those problems solutions were invented and were added to C++. That is called evolution.
And as for the speed question, you are dead wrong. Well-written C++ code can match well-written C code in speed, or even outperform it, just as C can outperform C++ in certain situations.
Read: C is not necessarily faster than C++. They both have advantages and disadvantages and are about equal in speed.
Saying anything else is just not true.

So why is it that you dislike C++ so much, again?

[MWAAAHAAA]

This thread being a waste of space and time is one thing. What's worse is that I find myself actually wasting energy on the big question... who's more pathetic, esbo (Mr. C) or Elysia (Ms. C++)? Why don't you two get married, you seem the perfect fit.

Anyway, both of you do not seem to understand that a programming language is just a tool to solve a problem. And which tool the programmer uses is largely a matter of his personal preference and experience. A C programmer comfortable with C will obviously be biased towards implementing his solution in C, and vice versa for a C++ programmer.

Both of you also seem to forget that there are other programming languages out there. Especially when it comes to the field of scientific computing there is large bias towards Fortran (and there may even be great hostility towards C/C++).

[Akkernight]

Such threads get people talking, which is good! MWAAAHAAA, you spoilsport...

[Elysia]

This thread being a waste of space and time is one thing. What's worse is that I find myself actually wasting energy on the big question... who's more pathetic, esbo (Mr. C) or Elysia (Ms. C++)? Why don't you two get married, you seem the perfect fit.

Presenting facts or being biased is one thing, but being rude is another. I should report you and your post.

[Akkernight]

Relax, you ain't pathetic, nor is esbo xP You both have rights to have your meanings/thoughts/whatever getting people banned is never the right way xP

[phantomotap]

Presenting facts or being biased is one thing, but being rude is another. I should report you and your post.

^_^

He is just jealous of all the attention your giving the OP.

Soma

[whiteflags]

>> Presenting facts or being biased is one thing, but being rude is another. I should report you and your post

A report emails the entire moderating team. Your feelings frankly aren't a reason to use it. I only filed one report in the three years I've been here and that was because someone was rather immaturely talking about penises and vaginas, and apparently trying to sell something. That's the type of crap you report.

[iMalc]

The thing esbo doesn't realise is that his grief isn't really with C++, it's really with OOP. He simply doesn't understand the usefulness of OOP.

esbo's also misguided into thinking that his public display of clulessness will instead somehow make others say "OMFG you're right I've been using C++ for so long that I was blind to the fact that it is a waste of time when it can all be done in C!".
Wake up - those that use C++ have been doing so because they've discovered the bennefits of it, and OOP.

Next flame war I'm asking up front what the initiator expects to achieve.

[esbo]

OK, if you want an example of how C++ can kick C's butt, here you go:
Which is faster, C's qsort() function or C++'s std::sort() function?
Since std::sort() is a template which can take advantage of inlining, the speed can be substantially faster than qsort().
http://www.tilander.org/aurora/2007/...and-qsort.html

Well as I would not be using a fuction at all I think you would find my sort writtenn in C would be faster.
It's a bit of a cheat if you write bad code for me and then test how it performs

[esbo]

The thing esbo doesn't realise is that his grief isn't really with C++, it's really with OOP. He simply doesn't understand the usefulness of OOP.

esbo's also misguided into thinking that his public display of clulessness will instead somehow make others say "OMFG you're right I've been using C++ for so long that I was blind to the fact that it is a waste of time when it can all be done in C!".
Wake up - those that use C++ have been doing so because they've discovered the bennefits of it, and OOP.

Next flame war I'm asking up front what the initiator expects to achieve.

What you don't realise, is that I know how to program end of story.
I don't need to learn about OOP because I already know how to write good programs.
I don't need mumbo jumbo, I can get on and write programs without that.
I mean it is not as if writing good maintainable programs is difficult in the first place.

Afterall if you struggle with a book on C good help you when you pick up a book on OOP.
Basiclally if you need to be taught how to program, you are probably not suited to programming.

[kermit]

Basiclally if you need to be taught how to program, you are probably not suited to programming.

Yes, because everybody is born with all programming knowledge...

[esbo]

Prehaps the irony of the whole thing is that I would bet you a pound to a penny that my (editor) program, written in C, employed more object oriented techinques than the one which was being written in 'object orientated' C++.
There is a lesson in there somewhere I think!!

[esbo]

Yes, because everybody is born with all programming knowledge...

Obviously not, but as in everything, people has a range of abilities from being naturally
talanted at something to being complete muppets and all shades inbetween.


After all programming is just followig simple rules, but if mess the rules up you will end up with a bad program
whatever language you use.

[m37h0d]

Basically if you need to be taught how to program, you are probably not suited to programming.

that's aburd. how would you learn anything without documentation? blindly stabbing away in the dark?