[linux-elitists] The PDP-11 assembler that thinks it's an object system!

Ben Woodard woodard@redhat.com
Wed Mar 26 11:02:53 PST 2003

On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 19:22, Nick Moffitt wrote:

> > > My question is -- now that we have GCC 3.2.x
> > > (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/ -- "A primary objective was to
> > > stabilize the C++ ABI; we believe that the interface to the
> > > compiler and the C++ standard library are now relatively stable.")
> > > and an increasing collection of interesting free software using
> > > C++, is it time to take a second look at this perhaps unfairly
> > > maligned language?
> > 
> > I'd say "yes". I think C++ is a more expressive language and can
> > provide programmers more leverage in working on big problems than C
> > does.
> 	The real argument, though, is not C++ vs C.  The fact that C++
> is (for the most part) a *superset* of C makes that discussion
> uninteresting.

That is a very good point. I think that unequivocally C++ is better than
C. It allows you to do things that are hard in C, easily. If you find
some of the features hard to understand, or dangerous -- don't use them.
That is a matter of personal/project policy. I think that you will see
that most of the experienced C++ programmers take almost exactly this
stand. e.g. "This is the subset of the features that _I_ use." 

> 	The real argument is whether C++ really fills a need when you
> have C on the "macro assembler to get performance" side and
> Perl/Python/LISP/shellscripting on the "expressive language to get
> work done" side.  Surely the range where such a drastic compromise
> between the two is needed is rather small, no?

You are right. This is a really good question and I believe you will get
many different answers. I'd say yes as a matter of personal opinion. For
me the gap between C and Perl is so big that I find that C++ works well
for me.


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list