From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f849b,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 101b33,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid101b33,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public From: Gerhard Menzl Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/18 Message-ID: <36A2F986.97FB0411@sea.ericsson.se>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 433929874 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <369F1D39.64A65BC1@sea.ericsson.se> <369f81a9.31040093@news.demon.co.uk> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Ericsson Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java,comp.java.advocacy,comp.realtime,comp.arch.embedded,comp.object,comp.lang.java.programmer Date: 1999-01-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John Birch wrote: > Yes you would certainly gain some features that were not present in C. > Whether it made sense to use a crippled C++ in this way is a much more > debatable issue. In my experience you should either take it all or > leave it. C++ was explicitly designed so that programmers could restrict themselves to whatever subset they felt were appropriate for their application. Check out "The C++ Programming Language (3rd. ed.)" and "The Design and Evolution of C++" by Bjarne Stroustrup for a more detailed explanation. You may not use the full power of C++, but it's certainly not "crippled". > If you start telling developers that "We're using C++ but we > don't use X, Y, Z", you are constraining the number of paradigms that > they are used to working in. Further you are now creating a > non-standard language that looks like C++ but isn't. By your definition, every program that does not use each and every feature of C++ (in other words: 99.9% of all programs ever written) would be non-standard. Again: it was the intention of its designer that you could choose your subset from C++ that meets your needs. > My statement here rests upon the interpretation of 'subset'. I think a > perfectly good mathematical definition exists. Using that definition C > is not a subset of C++. I grant however that any C program that does > not compile under C++ is probably weak ;-) Oh please, not another subset discussion! Nobody claims that C is a subset of C++ in a strict mathematical sense. The point is that the intersection covers well over 99% of C, so in practical terms, C++ does everything that C does, plus a lot more. Gerhard Menzl