Thread: Advantages of using C first?

it seems that C started it all. For me, i started C++ first.

But is there a difference really ?

To me, as a simple programmer, C++ is just C with OOP, i do not like to be very technica.

So learning C++, in my 'untechnical' opinion is learning C.

I only use the term C to refer to the first language created by Ritchie. When I say C++, i simply mean new C with OOP power

You will little way if you merely use C with classes. C++ is an entirely different language on its own.
I suggest that you learn C++ before C, mostly to get used to C++ way of thinking. C++ has a lot to offer, ranging from lots of algorithms to generics, classes and RAII. Don't be another C with classes user. There are zillions of them already. We want more real C++ programmers.

Learning C is an "essential" part of learning C++ because a lot of stuff, usually that deals with implementing containers, deal with these low parts. So it is part of it, but it should be learned as a part of the course and certainly not first.

It's still going I'm okay with studying C++. I like this book because it teaches where C ends and C++ begins, and the chapters progress towards C++. It's been a while so it's refreshing.

Didn't Bjarne say C++ was originally C with Classes? It feels that way. Hard to say it's something else after he started designing it. Visual Basic tried to improve over time adding OOP hooks but it has a legacy it's still trying to move away from. As Visual Basic.NET has "Option Strict On" and "Option Explicit On" options, C++ developers constantly use C libraries that are not OOP, making their project always C with their own classes and whatever C++ might provide in the non-oop std namespace: std::min(), std::max(), etc.

Don't remember where but I remember reading something from him saying C++ is a multi-paradigm language. I do think he's stressing OOP because that's where his market is, which is fine. I guess my point is you can never be a real C++ programmer if you're always using C libraries etc. I don't think anyone would have time to abstract everything. But still, OOP is good if the project benefits from it. Not all do.

Originally Posted by dxfoo

Didn't Bjarne say C++ was originally C with Classes? It feels that way. Hard to say it's something else after he started designing it.

Scott Meyers suggests that "the easiest way is to view C++ not as a single language but as a federation of related languages. (...) there are only four". These four that he lists are:

• C
• Object-Oriented C++
• Template C++
• The STL

Of course, this is a rather simplified view, since the members of this "federation of related languages" can be further subdivided and blend with each other in "multi-paradigm programming".

Originally Posted by dxfoo

Didn't Bjarne say C++ was originally C with Classes? It feels that way. Hard to say it's something else after he started designing it. Visual Basic tried to improve over time adding OOP hooks but it has a legacy it's still trying to move away from. As Visual Basic.NET has "Option Strict On" and "Option Explicit On" options, C++ developers constantly use C libraries that are not OOP, making their project always C with their own classes and whatever C++ might provide in the non-oop std namespace: std::min(), std::max(), etc.

Originally, yes, but it has evolved so much since then.
Templates and RAII, for example, are certainly not just "C with some C++ touch". And designing in modern C++, what with classes, smart pointers, RAII, templates is certainly so much more different than C.
So while C++ was C with classes once, it is such no longer, I would argue.

Two verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry different things. RTTI is avoided; RAII is encouraged.

Although I cannot say for sure, I would guess that it's probably C++. The simple reason is that C++ scales easier than C, and for big projects, scalability helps.
C++ will probably be the dominant language in games for who knows how many years to come.

Originally Posted by Elysia

RTTI is avoided; RAII is encouraged.

Uh? RTTI is a feature of the language. What do you mean avoided?

But yes. RTTI and RAII are two completely different things.

Avoided as in discouraged.

RTTI is discouraged?

Yes, but unlike Java, C++ has a vast and powerful static type system: templates.
It allows you to work with types without knowing the true type.
That isn't to say that RTTI isn't used or shouldn't be used, but 99% of the times, it can be solved without it. Hence, it's discouraged, just as throwing an exception in a destructor is.

I think templates are used to not know the type initially, and RTTI is used to discover the type.

An example from my book:

Code:

Mammal *ptr;

for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { 
  ptr = factory();

if (typeid(*ptr) == typeid(Puppy)) { // it's a puppy! }
}