You are not logged in.

#76 2014-08-26 14:42:36

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 29,447
Website

Re: C++ versus C: is C really "better"?

nomorewindows wrote:

Entertaining - but even though I am no fan of C++, one must note the dates on those messages.  Things have changed a lot in 10 years.

That's not to say C++ doesn't still suck, but the reasons provided 10 years ago may no longer be relevant.  It's found new reasons to suck wink


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Online

#77 2014-08-26 15:10:27

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 3,362

Re: C++ versus C: is C really "better"?

Trilby wrote:
nomorewindows wrote:

Entertaining - but even though I am no fan of C++, one must note the dates on those messages.  Things have changed a lot in 10 years.

That's not to say C++ doesn't still suck, but the reasons provided 10 years ago may no longer be relevant.  It's found new reasons to suck wink

Most modern languages have the OOP implementation.  But when it came to ADT Pascal vs. C++, I'm not sure which one would win.  ADT Pascal was an afterthought I think.  But some sweared by it.  I just couldn't justify writing a C++ program before the thing would fall apart.  Java has a little better OOP implementation, because it is straight OOP, but then again it is slower (like BASIC) since it doesn't have pointers.  Writing a C++ program is like trying to do a Venn Diagram while you are programming, satisfying all of the conditions thereof.

Last edited by nomorewindows (2014-08-26 15:12:35)


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Offline

#78 2014-08-26 15:15:29

ANOKNUSA
Member
Registered: 2010-10-22
Posts: 2,141

Re: C++ versus C: is C really "better"?

thiagowfx wrote:

I've recently stumbled upon Go. It seems like a good compromise between efficiency and modern conventions, and it is strongly based in C/C++. I'll probably study it during the next weeks. Has anyone tried it?

Go is being developed by two of the old bigwigs from Bell Labs (Unix and Plan 9 co-creator Ken Thompson and Plan 9 co-creator Rob Pike), and was created because they hated C++.

Offline

#79 2014-08-26 16:05:42

HalosGhost
Forum Moderator
From: Twin Cities, MN
Registered: 2012-06-22
Posts: 2,089
Website

Re: C++ versus C: is C really "better"?

thiagowfx wrote:

I've recently stumbled upon Go. It seems like a good compromise between efficiency and modern conventions, and it is strongly based in C/C++. I'll probably study it during the next weeks. Has anyone tried it?

Go feels much like C and Python had a baby. However, its OOP implementation is significantly different from the typical (class+object instance) model. Both Go and Rust have a similar, but new take on how OOP should be done.

Personally, I like the new take on OOP, but I'm not a huge fan of everything that both Go and Rust have done. We'll see how Rust turns out, and I'll make my judgement then.

All the best,

-HG

Offline

#80 2014-08-26 20:20:58

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 3,362

Re: C++ versus C: is C really "better"?

The rule: KISS.  Somehow C++ takes my C program and makes it more complicated.  C does the job.


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Offline

#81 2014-08-26 20:58:48

ewaller
Administrator
From: Pasadena, CA
Registered: 2009-07-13
Posts: 19,740

Re: C++ versus C: is C really "better"?

What I can say is this.  I started with C.  I learned object oriented code when trying to create large complicated GUI applications for Window (in the days before .NET) and the Mac (Before OSX).  There was the definite Ah Ha! moment when I realized what OOP was about.

Since then, I have had the opportunity to do more embedded and non-GUI stuff.  I became disenchanted with C++ and drifted back to pure C.  On my return, however, I found I learned a lot about data structures and data centric programs -- I find my C coding to have vastly improved as a result of my excursion into C++.


Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature -- Michael Faraday
Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine. -- Alan Turing
---
How to Ask Questions the Smart Way

Offline

#82 2014-08-27 13:15:06

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 3,362

Re: C++ versus C: is C really "better"?

Doing a makepkg on an application these days takes forever with boost, qt and similar helper libraries.


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Offline

#83 2014-08-27 13:59:37

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 29,447
Website

Re: C++ versus C: is C really "better"?

That's likely a faulty assumption of causality.  Bigger packages with more programs and/or modules to compile will take longer.  Often bigger packages will use those libraries which makes the correlation valid - but they likely use those libs because they a big, they are not big because they use those libraries.

So take any package that uses those, and replicate all the functionality in C without boost/qt/etc, and it will take at least as long - if not longer - to compile.

Although I will agree that using those libs can open the door for bad coding practicies, 'feature creep' and bloat.  But that is not a direct result of those libs - it is a result of lazy programmers.

Last edited by Trilby (2014-08-27 14:01:17)


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Online

#84 2014-08-27 20:13:15

Gregosky
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2013-07-26
Posts: 173

Re: C++ versus C: is C really "better"?

nomorewindows wrote:

I don't know where are you taking that from mate, read through this email.

Offline

#85 2014-08-27 22:28:50

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 3,362

Re: C++ versus C: is C really "better"?

Gregosky wrote:
nomorewindows wrote:

I don't know where are you taking that from mate, read through this email.

Looks like to me it's the same link.


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Offline

#86 2014-08-27 23:42:04

thiagowfx
Member
Registered: 2013-07-09
Posts: 586

Re: C++ versus C: is C really "better"?

HalosGhost wrote:

Go feels much like C and Python had a baby. However, its OOP implementation is significantly different from the typical (class+object instance) model. Both Go and Rust have a similar, but new take on how OOP should be done.

Interfaces, right? Yeah, I've never done serious programming with these languages, but this idea looks clean to me. I hope it scales well.

ANOKNUSA wrote:

Go is being developed by two of the old bigwigs from Bell Labs (Unix and Plan 9 co-creator Ken Thompson and Plan 9 co-creator Rob Pike), and was created because they hated C++.

Haha, yeah, I later on discovered that. Go hasn't much to do with C++ (actually, almost nothing at all). KISS, simplicity is one of the strongest features and direction that the designers and current maintainers of the language are leading it to. I've studied it for a while now, and I really enjoyed it. Recommended! It is a relatively different way/approach to solve problems (=simplicity and standard libraries). I felt the same when I first learned a functional language.


About the Linus on C++ thing: classic thing is classic.

Last edited by thiagowfx (2014-08-27 23:43:15)

Offline

#87 2014-10-03 20:48:16

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 3,362

Re: C++ versus C: is C really "better"?

Indian developers wanting to OOP the Linux kernel.I'm not sure that Linus would like this idea of OOPing the kernel as he is already opposed to the C++.


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB