Re: C or C++ something else....


"kwikius" <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1159817505.469788.177860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

No. I don't code in C, the local C guru. Poor guy came out of rehab,
and then they asked him to look at some code he wrote before he went
in. He disappeared around that time :-(

You don't code in C - you cannot see the point of coding in C compared to
C++ - C is my language of choice - it is simple - it is clear - the cost of
every language construct is relatively clear.
I know you don't, but can you code in C? - or are you just a critic as
Brendan Behan said, "Critics are like eunuchs in the harem; they know how
it's done, they've seen it sone every day, but they're unable to do it
themselves."

C++ is often trumpeted as a great advance on C because of its OO features.

OO has not produced the improvements in software production and the claimed
benefits of encapsulation, inheritance and reuse that the OO approach
promised - there are good ideas in OO but they rarely get translated into
practice - mainly because OO design causes inexperienced developers to
over-complicate, inheriting here-there-and-everywhere, using every pattern
in the book.

The old-timers like me were essentially doing encapsulation and re-use when
we were writing COBOL, which the young java-kids describe as "back in the
day".

OO guru Bertrand Meyer in the best book ever written about OO programming
says the semantics of C++ are confusing - (his book is called something like
"Object Oriented Software Construction" - don't have it with me, but if a
certain person is reading this then I'd like my book back - it has been over
a year) - I think that his OO language Eiffel was translated to C and then
compiled (by a C compiler).

Advice to the original poster:

If you want to hold your head up high as a real programmer then learn C - C
is the scalpel of high-level languages - you control everything - you cut
with precision, a surgeon rather than a doctor - then you will understand
the fundamentals of programming - some educationlists argue that only when
you "construct it for yourself " from the basics that you truely
understand - my take on that is, "write it - debug it - then you
understand" - learning assembler is even more informative - but they don't
teach hard low-level programming like this on modern-day university courses
(lecturer laziness - short attention spans - or just the general pressures
of grade inflation and dumbing down).

C++ you know - it's a OO language where you still have control over memory
management and re-writable strings.

something else - C# is an OO language from Microsoft - it is easy to develop
applications and the .NET framework provides you with lots functionality -
you don't have control over memory management - strings are immutable.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Increasing efficiency in C
    ... > You keep control of everything. ... C is a 'lightweight', *flexible* language. ... Depends upon the machine, but yes, imo one should ... nor 'plug-board' programming ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: RS232 Datalogging and Control
    ... data acquisition and control software. ... programming language that you don't have to learn syntax for. ... Unfortunately my expertise in this area is somewhat out of date. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Hi, Python v.s. C++, which is better?
    ... I recommend doing what you're paid to do. ... > feel much control on programming in python. ... the 'best' language is always C++, because here, it's the ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
  • Re: Natural language programming?
    ... Human language can express ... to control a computer. ... >much exactly what a programming language already is. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: object system...
    ... for that you need machine language. ... isn't even as fast as other systems programming languages. ... Stroustrup's stated design goal was to enable ... all manner of elegance or abstraction can be sacrificed for speed, ...
    (comp.object)