C or C++

phah · Post by **phah** » 11 May 2003, 12:24

first post
 
 What is the real difference between C and C++. What I think is that C++ is a more advanced form of C like from pascal to Turbo Pascal with objects, or sumting similar.
 
 So if C++ is indeed what I think it is, (a better version of C), why is it that people still use C and C++ compilers have a option for compiling in C? What´s the point? Anything you do in C can be done in C++ right!?
 
 one

Post by **Synkronos** » 11 May 2003, 16:41

Many EPROM chips can run C code. They however do not have all the extra compiler info for the ++ part. I´m sure there are other reasons, but that´s the one I know about, having studied Electrical Engineering.

AngryRabbit · Post by **AngryRabbit** » 12 May 2003, 08:57

Not sure why people still use C, but C++ is object based (you can re-use the code) and C is not.

snipeers · Post by **snipeers** » 12 May 2003, 18:29

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-05-12 08:57, AngryRabbit wrote:
 Not sure why people still use C, but C++ is object based (you can re-use the code) and C is not.
 
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 even me i dunno why a lot of people are still using Unix instead of GUI-OSes that are easy to use like Windows and *ugh Mac OS X ugh*
 <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_confused.gif">

AngryRabbit · Post by **AngryRabbit** » 13 May 2003, 07:51

What language is windows programed in?

LordRage · Post by **LordRage** » 13 May 2003, 07:55

I might be mistaken but I think windows is C++. also just an interesting fact.. Windows XP has more than 40 million lines of code!!! that is alot . now u know why firms have groups of developers.

phah · Post by **phah** » 07 Jun 2003, 01:35

you comments left me more confused. I know that c++ is object warra warra. but why do people still use C .
 
 to write CGI files can you use C++ ?

LordRage · Post by **LordRage** » 07 Jun 2003, 09:26

Not sure really (about CGI) but some developers still use C because they want to, they are happy with what they have, just like some C++ programmers Have gone to C# and some havent, you need to speak to someone who has used both languages, (i havent used C, but i have used C++) so i cannot give you the advice you need, try emailing microsoft, I have found that they are very responsive, any way I have an exam just now so i must go!!

Post by **Kronos** » 11 Jun 2003, 12:18

C is still only used for backward compatibility (Like COBOL.) All new embeded ROMs support C++. As for the differences: C is procedural, ie. No objects or classes (u can put functions in a struct so that it acts like class but the data is still public by default). C++ is Somewhat Object oriented(u can still write procedural programs in C++.) But its true power is in its OO side (im not going to go into all the details of OOP.) C++ also uses streams for all I/O, which are in fact objects ("cout" for example is an object of the "ostream" class.) Many developers use fully OO languages Like Java and c# (Everything must be an object), and many use C++ to write COM+ Objects For use in C#. (C# only works for .NET though.) I hope that answered your question.

phah · Post by **phah** » 19 Jun 2003, 02:15

thanks

nicc777 · Post by **nicc777** » 23 Jun 2003, 20:37

I have not read so much bull in a long time... C is a far superior language then C++, for a couple of reasons. The best reason for me is that it´s stil the best for low level stuff - like kernel hacking. I suggest you have a look at <a href="http://www.themoebius.org.uk/tutes/ckernel.html" target="_blank">http://www.themoebius.org.uk/tutes/ckernel.html</a>
 
 Cheers

Post by **Kronos** » 24 Jun 2003, 13:47

Speak for yourself!!! Bjarne Stroustrup himself will B**** Slap you for saying something like that. C++ was designed to overcome the flaws and lackings of C. I Don´t know what kernel you hack but the latest versions are all C++ or Java. Try to move forwards in life, not back. C is as redundant as COBOL for f*** sakes. <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_evil.gif"> Sorry for my surge of fury there, but this is just so ridiculous i can´t control myself. Why on god´s green earth would you prefer C?!? Have you ever really worked on C++? And have you forgotten that C++ still supports the entire C Language? <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif">

simmy · Post by **simmy** » 24 Jun 2003, 15:39

I Know C++ is better that C but,
 Dude, how can u say COBOL is redundant? <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_confused.gif">

carribus · Post by **carribus** » 24 Jun 2003, 16:06

The main difference between C and C++ is this: C is a structured language, and C++ is a object oriented language.
 Windows until 2000 was written in C, and any additional code to Windows (as in XP and 2003 Server) is C++ based.
 C is still used because it is (a) a bit faster than C++ (because of the OOP), and (b) is necessary for low level development environments.
 C++ however gives developers all the power of C, plus allows us use Object Oriented design principles such as patterns.
 ´nuff said?
 If you wanna learn either of the languages, I would suggest learning C first, and then C++. Always get your roots <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_wink.gif">

Post by **Kronos** » 25 Jun 2003, 11:10

I don´t mean to diss any COBOL programmers, simmy, but it is one of the oldest languages around. I am very much for progress and therefore don´t like all this backward compatibility stuff. All new languages like C++ and Java are much better for large scale projects (Enter OOP.) It has been proven over and over again. Sure C is good, always has been, but C++ is just better.
 
 If you say that C is better for low level stuff, that might be true, but then you´d have to admit that assembly (or so help me god, MACHINE LANGUAGE) is even better than C. But how many ppl are up to writing everything in asm?!?!?

snipeers · Post by **snipeers** » 25 Jun 2003, 19:41

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>Speak for yourself!!! Bjarne Stroustrup himself will B**** Slap you for saying something like that.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 although i can´t really speak for the other guy, i think what he meant is most programmers still prefers using C for many *nix´es kernel development/tuning but saying that C is a far superior language than C++ is quite an overstatement. both languages have there advantages - C being used more in systems programming while C++ in OOP. i like C´s dual nature being both a HLL and LLL while C++ can be classified as an outright HLL.
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>C++ was designed to overcome the flaws and lackings of C.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 i really was a bit lacking these days, can you brief us about those flaws that C have and that C++ was designed to overcome? as a systems programming language, C works just fine for me.
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>I Don´t know what kernel you hack but the latest versions are all C++ or Java.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 well, can it be said to all *nix´es based OSes. afaik, even Windows still uses lines of C codes to check for buffer overflows.
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>Try to move forwards in life, not back.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 that´s why i use C instead of assembler languages, i don´t think that´s a step backwards.
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>C is as redundant as COBOL for f*** sakes.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 ...and since Unix is largely written in C maybe you might as well add that it is a redundant OS, and so is Linux and other *nix´es variant. is that what you mean?
 
 can you please tell us why are we still using Unix these days (mostly in mainframes) instead of GUI-based OSes like Windows and OS X. (note though that OS X is based on BSD - a Unix variant).
 
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>Why on god´s green earth would you prefer C?!?</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 programmers still uses an old language like C mainly because *nix´es OS still uses it in there system calls, C allows greater access to many machine-level features which would have require an assembly language and, as you´ve stated, for backward compatibility. [ Edited by snipeers On Date June 25, 2003 ]

snipeers · Post by **snipeers** » 27 Jun 2003, 10:25

the *real* origins of the C programming language.
 
 There is a common misconception that C was invented in 1972 by Dennis Ritchie.The truth is that it was actually invented about 100 years earlier by an obscure religious cult in Texas. Their leader had a vision of machines that could be programmed. He instructed his followers to develop a programming language for these machines so that his cult would be able to use them to take over the world.
 
 The programming language they produced was the original version of the C programming language. People living near the cult heard stories of how they were going to take over the world, got scared and attacked them, raizing their settlement to the ground. Only three members of the cult survived.
 
 They wanted to pass their knowledge of C programming on to future generations, but were too scared to write anything down(*). Instead they invented dozens of campfire stories, containing all the information required to program in C, that they taught to their children. Rather than inventing C in 1972, Dennis Ritchie simply reconstructed the language from his many long nights round the campfire spent listening to folk stories.
 
 (*) There is a legend that one of the survivors managed to save manuscripts that detailed the original C language specification and also answers to common homework problems. It is said that he buried these in the Nevada desert. After the cult was destroyed it was never thought that C would ever be resurrected, which is why these manuscripts were known as the "Dead C Scrolls".
 
 adapted from usenet.

Post by **Kronos** » 01 Jul 2003, 13:04

Sorry for that. You put me in my place. I´m just a big supporter of OOP and C++ in general. I say that C++ is better because it supports everything, C, C++ and asm.

Mire · Post by **Mire** » 07 Jul 2003, 11:21

Pardon me if I am wrong, but the way I see it, the OOP model only affects the amount of code the programmer has to type. All of the objects, and all of the higher level language components (except maybe error-trapping) get converted into the lower level C code when the code is compiled so:
 
 1. The embedded chips that run C++ aren´t actually different from the ones that run C, they are just compiled with a different compiler.
 
 2. Since C++ supports all of C´s functionality (including embedded assembler), there is no reason why C++ shouldn´t replace C. However the change to OOP can be daunting to learn, and the statement above can be switched around (C can do everything C++ can do), so I think if you are comfortable with C there is nothing wrong with that.
 
 To all of those ´holier than thou´ C++ programmers, have a little respect. Those functions you take for granted in C++, can be and are programmed by hand by C programmers, and that takes skill.
 
 My personal preference is C++ <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_smile.gif"> .

snipeers · Post by **snipeers** » 14 Jul 2003, 13:20

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-07-07 11:21, Mire wrote:
 
 My personal preference is C++ <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_smile.gif"> .
 
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 ... and my personal preference though is K++.
 
 <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_cool.gif">

Mire · Post by **Mire** » 14 Jul 2003, 14:52

<IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif">
 
 Just when I thought I had made a serious and profound post, for the general betterment of mankind, snipeers had to go and kick my ego in the voonerables.
 
 <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif">

snipeers · Post by **snipeers** » 14 Jul 2003, 18:09

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-07-14 14:52, Mire wrote:
 <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif">
 
 Just when I thought I had made a serious and profound post, for the general betterment of mankind, snipeers had to go and kick my ego in the voonerables.
 
 <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif">
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 i´m just sooo bored about these C/C++ battle royale "which is the best language" kinda discussion. i´ve been thru this a loooong time back in some newsgroups and i just feel sorry to those people who are constantly preaching that C is a dead language and should be replaced but it just didn´t died and IMO it won´t happen any time soon (ATS) coz C is an ever evolving language.

Last-Attacker · Post by **Last-Attacker** » 26 Feb 2004, 10:15

Ok, I havn't read all the threads but here the thing:

C can be programmed and compiled in C++.
C is object-less.
C++ can inherit objects.
Both supports Inline assembly and are portable to any operating system (ie. to compile in linux with Linux specifications in your code, etc).
C++ is more popular with new things like Templates, operator overloading, advanced casting (ie. static_cast<type>(expression), also can use C-casting), etc.

Even though C++ is more advanced and stronger than C, it is still C programming platform because C++ was supposed to extend from it and a few things limits C++ because of this, but the limits are barely even needed.

Some people say that C is faster than C++ because of its simplicity, I say its not the language that makes it faster but the compiler! If you have a powerfull compiler then C-code and C++ - code can run evenly fast.

Well thats basically what I can think of between C and C++.

Last-Attacker · Post by **Last-Attacker** » 26 Feb 2004, 10:29

O yeah, just like there is a ARB Board that controls the standards for OpenGL, so it there a institution that controls the standards for C++ (I dunno who but apparently there is one). Thus C++ whill remain up to date while C fades away in the old dust of time

Just kinning, I read a few threads and I saw you guys battle it out between C and C++ and I don't want to get caught up in the cross-fire

.

But people have to use an up to date language one time or another, so why not use C++? It basically like a class inheriting from C. Now we have a C++ class!

snipeers · Post by **snipeers** » 27 Feb 2004, 19:27

Last-Attacker wrote:O yeah, just like there is a ARB Board that controls the standards for OpenGL, so it there a institution that controls the standards for C++ (I dunno who but apparently there is one). Thus C++ whill remain up to date while C fades away in the old dust of time

that's not true.

In 1983, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) formed a committee, X3J11, to establish a standard specification of C. After a long and arduous process, the standard was completed in 1989 and ratified as ANSI X3.159-1989 "Programming Language C". This version of the language is often referred to as ANSI C. In 1990, the ANSI C standard (with a few minor modifications) was adopted by the International Standards Organization (ISO) as ISO/IEC 9899:1990

After the ANSI standardization process, the C language specification remained relatively static for some time, whereas C++ continued to evolve. (Normative Amendment 1 created a new version of the C language in 1995, but this version is rarely acknowledged.) However, the standard underwent revision in the late 1990s, leading to the publication of ISO 9899:1999 in 1999. This standard is commonly referred to as "C99". It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000.

LINK