🚀 go-pugleaf

> In article <46rulc$ma@edisto.awod.com>, CZAR <rgfiii@awod.com> wrote:
> >I hate to infect a good argument with a newbie question, but I seem to
> >be missing the point.  I was under the impression that C++ was an
> >improvement over C.  So why would it be considered more marketable.
> >Are there things that you can do in C that you cannot in C++?
> 
> "Improvement" is a debateable term.  It's a *different* language.  C is
> smaller and simpler.  They can do exactly the same things; just
> differently.  C is sften better for small code or embedded systems; C++ 
> may
> be better for large systems.  Whatever you know is a good choice.
> 
> I prefer C, until C++ settles down more.  I really like some of C++,
> and hate some of it.  YMMV.
> 
> -s
> -- 
> Peter Seebach - seebs@solon.com || seebs@intran.xerox.com --
> C/Unix proto-wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help.  No, 
> really!
> Copyright 1995 Peter Seebach.  --  High energy particle theology
> The *other* C FAQ - ftp taniemarie.solon.com /pub/c/afq

From my POV, C also has advantages in that it is _far_ easier to predict 
the behaviour of the code generator (e.g. segmentation where this is 
appropriate). This can be a major issue where there is not an OS to 
handle it automatically.

A version of C with strong type-checks and a bit more readability would 
be lovely. Wonder what they would call it?

Mark Morgan Lloyd
mark_tbu@cix.compulink.co.uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or 
colleagues]