quote:

---

double d;
char buffer[10];
sprintf(buffer,"%f",d); //whoops, what happens if d is too long

---

quote:

---

Original post by Ready4Dis
c++ where we'd have to inherit a base object, and use virtual functions, which are WAY slow)

---

quote:

---

Original post by Enselic
[quote]Original post by kordova
But in some cases you simply _cannot_ do that.

---

int f();
 

struct A {
   int foo;
};

struct A a;
int a;
 

quote:

---

The above has a different meaning in C than in C++. A simple search and replace won't be sufficient. In C it is implicitly a variable arity function, while in C++ it is a zero-argument function.

---

#define (void) FOO

FOO f();
 

quote:

---

Original post by alnite
Enselic, just a reminder, IF you use WinAPI/OpenGL, you should not say that we can dump C and use C++ all the way.

---

quote:

---

I am just saying that Win32 and OpenGL API use C, not C++. There is no such thing called OOP in Win32 and OpenGL API, they are all pure function calls.

---

quote:

---

Original post by Bennettovia
when the C millisecond timer over flows in the 2030s or whenever its supposed to happen, then they'll be a reason to code in C, and I'll be makin' mega bux doin' it, so there.

---

quote:

---

Original post by alnite
I am just saying that Win32 and OpenGL API use C, not C++. There is no such thing called OOP in Win32 and OpenGL API, they are all pure function calls.

---

quote:

---

Original post by RhoneRanger
Strict C is probably faster than c++, but as long as you code smartly in c++, and take from C what is needed from C (example TYPEDEF), C++ will be almost, if not just as fast as C.

---

quote:

---

Original post by Senses777
[quote]Original post by Bennettovia
when the C millisecond timer over flows in the 2030s or whenever its supposed to happen, then they'll be a reason to code in C, and I'll be makin' mega bux doin' it, so there.

---

quote:

---

darkchrono4
Maybe C++ is better, but I'm just a hobbyist so I don't really care. I taught myself how to use C and never looked back. I've diddled with C++ and know how to do classes, overloading, etc. I just don't really like it. To me procedural is the way to go. Functions make more sense to me. Usually if I kind some code snippet that I want to use and its in C++ I convert it to C.

---

quote:

---

kordova
Of course (responding to the title "C is unnecessary") one could argue that c++ isn't any more necessary.

---

quote:

---

struct A { int foo;};
struct A a;
int a;

The above used to be legal C code. I think it was changed in C99 (gcc is griping at me about it). This obviously isn't legal code in C++. Again, a search and replace won't be sufficient.

---

quote:

---

Original post by alnite


Enselic, just a reminder, IF you use WinAPI/OpenGL, you should not say that we can dump C and use C++ all the way.

---

quote:

---

sjelkjd
Programming in c++ doesn't require you to use OOP. Purely procedural programming is acceptable in c++, when it is appropriate.

---

quote:

---

Original post by sjelkjd
Programming in c++ doesn't require you to use OOP. Purely procedural programming is acceptable in c++, when it is appropriate.

---

quote:

---

Original post by sjelkjd
As for some of the claims that C is a language for bugs and for buffer overuns, I would suspect that most people started with C, learned from their mistakes at the same time that they took on C++. There's nothing different in C then C++ when writing debug code that does bounds checking with memory fences and the like. You can write equally buggy ode in C++.



Not exactly. Most buffer overuns are of the form:

//C
char buffer[100];
scanf("%s",buffer); //whoops, use can enter more than 100 chars and trash the stack

//c++
std::string buffer;
cin>>buffer; //can be as long as you want

Here's another classic:

double d;
char buffer[10];
sprintf(buffer,"%f",d); //whoops, what happens if d is too long

//c++
double d;
ostringstream out;
out << d; //dynamically allocates

I can really go on and on. Like I said before, you certainly can program poorly in c++ (all the C code I showed is valid c++) - but it is poor style. Proper c++ uses the standard library's mechanisms:
strings for string manipulation
vectors for dynamic arrays
stringstreams for formatting
streams for type-safe IO
etc...

---

quote:

---

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about. My point is that c++ provides mechanisms in the language that you have to hack around as a C developer. All the planning in the world isn't going to make an C implementation of virtual functions pretty.

Using c++ doesn't mean having large class heirarchies, or making everything a virtual function. You have that option, and in many cases polymorphism is exactly what you want. In other cases, it falls woefully short(as anyone who has used generic functions in Lisp knows). You don't have to sacrifice performance for productivity in c++ - you simply have more language idioms available to express your problem.

---

quote:

---

Original post by Enselic
You can use C++ for those libaries too! Now could you leave? Yes you annoy me...

---

quote:

---

Original post by Enselic
THAT is why C is not necessary and that is why I started this thread.

---

quote:

---

Original post by kordova
Why/Who are you trying to prove this to? I'm sure several major games have been written in C so maybe you should speak with the Quake guys as I'm sure they would be fascinated by your _opinion_.

---

quote:

---

Original post by kordova
Why/Who are you trying to prove this to? I'm sure several major games have been written in C so maybe you should speak with the Quake guys as I'm sure they would be fascinated by your _opinion_.

---

quote:

---

WAY slow

---