Re: Why We Use C Than C++...

From: des@xxxxxx (Dag-Erling Smørgrav)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:49:23 +0100

Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Partly because C is faster (in places). Partly because it's simpler,
> so it's easier to get right. But mostly, I think, because C came
> first.

Another important factor is that C++ requires more run-time support
code to work properly.

DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@xxxxxx
.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why We Use C Than C++...
  - From: henryk . mueller
- Re: Why We Use C Than C++...
  - From: Walter Roberson

References:
- Why We Use C Than C++...
  - From: sonugeetha@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Why We Use C Than C++...
  - From: Richard Heathfield

Prev by Date: Re: Structure
Next by Date: Re: Outsmarting DOS C compiler to print to USB printer -- use DOS interrupt?
Previous by thread: Re: Why We Use C Than C++...
Next by thread: Re: Why We Use C Than C++...
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: Char strings, pointers and substrings.
... When did string literals become writable? ... DES ... Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@xxxxxx ... Prev by Date: ...
(comp.lang.c)
Re: Valgrind false alarm?
... Scope is irrelevant to initialization. ... DES ... Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@xxxxxx ... Prev by Date: ...
(comp.unix.programmer)
Re: fetch extension - use local filename from content-dispositionheader (new diff)
... You changed the size of struct url_stat. ... DES ... Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@xxxxxx ... Prev by Date: ...
(freebsd-current)
Re: Automatically prepend all stdout/stderr output with timestamp?
... Plumbing and silverware are outside the scope of the standard. ... DES ... Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@xxxxxx ... Prev by Date: ...
(comp.lang.c)
Re: regarding unix specific commands
... Burn it. ... DES ... Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@xxxxxx ... Prev by Date: ...
(comp.lang.c)