Timeline for Should I stop using the term C/C++?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 14, 2018 at 22:23 | comment | added | TRiG | Should exposed be espoused in the first paragraph? | |
| Oct 6, 2015 at 15:02 | comment | added | gaborous |
Beyond the intrinsic validity of the term, C/C++ is not a clear one, and thus not useful. Following your examples, a C/C++ library could either mean a C library with a C++ wrapper, or a C++ library with a C wrapper. Or it could mean that the library is composed of several modules, some compiled using C++, some compiled in C. This is not clear at all. To me, saying that a library is made in C and C++ is a lot more clear, or C library with compatibility with C++ is also a lot more clear. And here the ambiguity is with only two lang, imagine using this "communication strategy" for more...
|
|
| Oct 6, 2015 at 10:05 | comment | added | Zaibis | Thats just what I wanted to explain. And there was no intention of starting a rant. | |
| Oct 6, 2015 at 9:59 | comment | added | Zaibis | I just stated what I was asked for. I wasn't intending to do so. And it isn't a rant at all, I'm not saying that there is no use for the MSVC stuff. But its a fact that it can't be C nor C++ by their definitions. And its also a fact that it gives someone, who's learning to programm a wrong impression about what C or C++ is. And you also can't deny if you were by your self allready in such an area, that if it comes to portability, that what you called "brainless peers" is something which is simply required when working with C or C++, as it otherwise tends to cause a lot of portability trouble. | |
| Oct 6, 2015 at 9:13 | comment | added | user44761 | @Zaibis: all your points have been stated already by other answers - I am merely offering a different point of view. If you don't agree, fine, downvote and move on (And please leave your rants about MSVC and brainless peers where they belong, i.e. not here). This answer has already been trolled once (and hopefully cleaned up), please don't let this happen again (write your own if you need to, downvote otherwise). Thanks. | |
| Oct 6, 2015 at 7:45 | comment | added | Zaibis | Sorry for this wall of text, I wanted to avoid spamming it, but I got explicit aksed for it. | |
| Oct 6, 2015 at 7:44 | comment | added | Zaibis |
And I could never trust some one in this buisiness to do such a clean job if he tells me something about his projects, done in C/C++. (as long this statement doesn't indicate in anyway that he is aware of the difference and uses this just as a kind of word play.)
|
|
| Oct 6, 2015 at 7:44 | comment | added | Zaibis | in such a way that I even avoid calling the language compiled by MSVC-compiler neither C nor C++ as it is nothing of both. And people learned writing their C or C++ programms in that way, claim to have written portable code without knowing all the nit-picky stuff their code does in all the different versions. and some of them probably didn't even ever hear of unspecified or undefined behaving not asking about the difference. But the point is, as a professionel in this buisiness you have to be that nit-picky to do a clean job. | |
| Oct 6, 2015 at 7:44 | comment | added | Zaibis |
And the point why I'm advising anyone to differ between c and c++ and don't naming something "C/C++" if not by given semantic reasons that would explicite require this term(So where calling it C, C++ or C and C++ would be incorrect) is: People are asuming exactly that there are no comatibility problems between C and C++, even more if they started developing on windows in MSVS as the MSVC compiler is mixing C and C++ so hard and even cuts off features of booth languages which have to be supported by standard,
|
|
| Oct 6, 2015 at 7:44 | comment | added | Zaibis | But this wouldn't give any evidence that one is a subset of the other. And this is the point where it is simply wrong! C isn't a subset of C++, BECAUSE: The C++ standard says it is implementing the behaving as given in the C standard, IF NOT STATED DIFFERENT. And this notes about things that are different behaving appear not so rare as the poster here probabbly belives. and that is the reason why they are different at all. C++ implements a some here and there changed version of C. That makes it strictly seen incompatible with plain C! | |
| Oct 6, 2015 at 7:43 | comment | added | Zaibis |
@usernumber: I can state my points, sure. Well the library stuff is technically ok. But I would argue with the same the compleet opposite. The lexical analyzer is simply not correct. there are many things that are catched by a C++ analyzer the same way as they are meant by C but just write a C-code containing an declaration like this int new; and the analyzer would catch it as something it is not meant to be by C. I can understand that you might call this fussy. But the point is a Java lexical analyzer would also theoretically be able to catch up stuff like {},for,while,; in the same
|
|
| Oct 5, 2015 at 22:05 | comment | added | martinkunev | Following your logic, C/C++/Objective-C/Fortran/Pascal should be a valid expression but this sounds silly. The problem with the term C/C++ is that it can mean several things so you have no guarantee it will convery the desired meaning. In my practice, people usually understand it as "C is just an old primitive version of C++" and this is just wrong. | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 21:57 | comment | added | supercat | @phresnel: Saying that there "has to be " a reason that people do something doesn't necessarily mean that people must have a good reason for doing it. It does, however, often suggest that it's likely that people would have a good idea for doing it, and one should be loath to believe that people don't have a good reason for doing it unless one can find an alternative reason for people's actions. | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 15:52 | comment | added | phresnel | Your answer would be better without "There has to be a reason why these terms come together so often.". Facts as a substitute for reasoning would lead to flat earths. | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 14:10 | comment | added | usernumber | @Zaibis would you be kind enough to expand on which claims are false or inaccurate? | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 13:07 | comment | added | Zaibis | Why this has so many upvotes? It is full of inaccurateness and false claims! | |
| Oct 1, 2015 at 19:52 | comment | added | ChrisF♦ | Comments removed as they were getting noisy. | |
| Sep 30, 2015 at 23:03 | history | answered | user44761 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |