C/C++ does not exist!

C/C++ does not exist!

[Schilling J.]

In article <3fshks$lg3@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes [in his .sig]:
>
>-- 
>       Frustrated with C/C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!

It's been said before, but it deserves to be said again:  there is no such
language as "C/C++".  There are two separate languages, C and C++, which in
many respects are as different as night and day.   This is especially true
in the context of Ada -- for C has almost nothing in common with Ada, while 
C++ has a good deal in common with Ada.  This lumping together is especially
frustrating in things like Greg Aharonian's (or anybody's) language usage 
analyses, because there's a real question as to how much C++ is actually being
used out there.
-- 
Jonathan Schilling
Novell, UNIX Systems Group
jls@summit.novell.com

Re: C/C++ does not exist!

[Robb Nebbe]

In article <3g8s8eINNclv@marble.summit.novell.com>, jls@summit.novell.com (Schilling J.) writes:

|> 
|> It's been said before, but it deserves to be said again:  there is no such
|> language as "C/C++".  There are two separate languages, C and C++, which in
|> many respects are as different as night and day.   This is especially true
|> in the context of Ada -- for C has almost nothing in common with Ada, while 
|> C++ has a good deal in common with Ada.

The thing is a lot of people look at the move from C to C++ as not
really changing languages. They can compile "good" C with a C++ compiler
so they figure it is like moving from Word5 to Word6. At the university
where I work there are quite a few people (outside of the Computer Science
departement) that say they are programming in C++ but they are really
programming in C with a little "++" sprinkled on top.

Robb Nebbe

Re: C/C++ does not exist!

[David Weller]

In article <3g8s8eINNclv@marble.summit.novell.com>,
Schilling J. <jls@summit.novell.com> wrote:
>In article <3fshks$lg3@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes [in his .sig]:
>>
>>-- 
>>       Frustrated with C/C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
>
>It's been said before, but it deserves to be said again:  there is no such
>language as "C/C++".  There are two separate languages, C and C++, which in
>many respects are as different as night and day.   This is especially true
>in the context of Ada -- for C has almost nothing in common with Ada, while 
>C++ has a good deal in common with Ada.  This lumping together is especially
>frustrating in things like Greg Aharonian's (or anybody's) language usage 
>analyses, because there's a real question as to how much C++ is actually being
>used out there.

More to the point (from my perspective) is how many organizations are
using C++ when they should strongly consider using Ada95.  Still,
John, you're correct.  I've fixed my signature. :-)



-- 
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
	

Re: C/C++ does not exist!

[Robert Dewar]

Well it is not so easy to say that C and C++ are separate languages. Sure
I understand what Jonathan is saying, but the fact of the matter is that
you can be using a C++ compiler and programming in C. So really what we have
here is a spectrum with C at one end, and full C++ at the other. you
can't just take a binary view, and the real question, even among those
using C++ compilers, is how much they are really using C++.

Quite often I see "C++" programs which are really C programs using a little
bit of abstract data type stuff from C++ (it is after all so sorely missing
in C), but these programs still feel more like C programs than C++ programs
both philosphically and textually,

People use the label C/C++ to refer to this spectrum, and I think that's
fair enough. It certainly would be very hard for Greg or anyone else to
find out whether people where really using C++ or not!

Re: C/C++ does not exist!

[David O'Brien]

Schilling J. (jls@summit.novell.com) wrote:
: In article <3fshks$lg3@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes [in his .sig]:
: >-- 
: >       Frustrated with C/C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!

: language as "C/C++".  There are two separate languages, C and C++, which in
: many respects are as different as night and day.   This is especially true
: in the context of Ada -- for C has almost nothing in common with Ada, while 
: C++ has a good deal in common with Ada.  This lumping together is especially

While C may have nothing in common with Ada, it still fair game for
attach since C is more used than Ada, and Ada'ites would rather see Ada
used where C is being used.  You don't see the C-Ada comparisons in
comp.lang.c, it appears C programmers aren't afraid of Ada taking over.
However, I dare say (flame-retardant suit is on) that C would be used in
many places that Ada is if it weren't forced by the government or higher
management.  Those it may be theorized that the Ada world is worried
about C taking over.

-- David O'Brien	(dobrien@seas.gwu.edu)

Flames to obrien@sea.legent.com...  Since my company's new firewall is
really a moat, you won't get me there anymore.  :-)))

Re: C/C++ does not exist!

[Michael Feldman]

In article <3g8s8eINNclv@marble.summit.novell.com>,
Schilling J. <jls@summit.novell.com> wrote:

[snip]

>This is especially true
>in the context of Ada -- for C has almost nothing in common with Ada, while 
>C++ has a good deal in common with Ada.  This lumping together is especially
>frustrating in things like Greg Aharonian's (or anybody's) language usage 
>analyses, because there's a real question as to how much C++ is actually being
>used out there.

Actually, I think saying C/C++ makes a nice statement about the confusion.
It indicates just how blurry the distinction is in many folks' minds.
I generally write it that way with tongue squarely in cheek.

Mike Feldman

Re: C/C++ does not exist!

[Adam]

In article <D31MFK.Ao0@research.att.com>, bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
:
:
:jls@summit.novell.com (Schilling J.) 
:
: > because there's a real question as to how much C++ is actually being
: > used out there.
:
:Really?
:
:Of course, keeping your eyes closed is a good way to be sure
:not to see anything see anything you don't want to see.
:
:	- Bjarne
:

Perhaps jls means to say that C++ is perhaps being used more as a "better C"
than as a way of fully adopting the OO paradigm. I personally believe that
a good OO programmer/designer (yes, the roles are blurred by an iterative
development cycle) will have learnt to look at objects, messages and
polymorphism first, and structs and pointers second.
-- 
Adam Caradoc Watkin-Jones (acw93@aber.ac.uk)

Re: C/C++ does not exist!

[Michael Feldman]

In article <3gbm51$glp@osfa.aber.ac.uk>,  <acw93@aber.ac.uk> wrote:

>Perhaps jls means to say that C++ is perhaps being used more as a "better C"
>than as a way of fully adopting the OO paradigm. I personally believe that
>a good OO programmer/designer (yes, the roles are blurred by an iterative
>development cycle) will have learnt to look at objects, messages and
>polymorphism first, and structs and pointers second.

With all due respect to Bjarne, I've seen a fair amount of blurriness too.
There's a good deal of C out there that's just being compiled by C++
compilers, either because those users don;t know, or would like to
hide, that they are not _really_ doing C++.  Some of this is, I'm sure, an
education problem, but not all.

Mike Feldman

Re: C/C++ does not exist!

[David Weller]

In article <D31MFK.Ao0@research.att.com>,
Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760 <9758-26353> wrote:
>jls@summit.novell.com (Schilling J.) 
> > because there's a real question as to how much C++ is actually being
> > used out there.
>Really?
>
>Of course, keeping your eyes closed is a good way to be sure
>not to see anything see anything you don't want to see.
>

Bjarne, I think you misinterpreted Jonathan's comments.  He was _not_
accusing people of claiming they were using C++ when they were merely
using C.  Indeed, many of us don't believe that.  While it's true the
some (like myself) have indeed seen such usage, I'd like to think
it's the exception, rather than the rule (no pun intended :-).  More
to the point, I fully expect to see such accusations in the future
with regard to Ada ("They _claim_ they're doing Ada95, but it's just
Ada83 code being pushed through an Ada95 compiler.").  Does it bother
me?  Not really, migrating from one version of a language to the next
generally involves a gradual inclusion of new features.  Jonathan's
point, in fact, was that C++ is more than a "version" change, which
is why he (properly) chided me for lumping the C/C++ thing.  

One thing I like to brag about is that Ada95 is MUCH more "backward
compatible" than C++ (having personally done conversion efforts with
both languages now).  Does that mean C++ is flawed?  Not at all, it
just validates Jonathan's comments.  I believe, in fact, that you
interpreted the opposite of what Jonathan was saying.


-- 
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
	

Re: C/C++ does not exist!

[Pat Rogers]

In article <D31MFK.Ao0@research.att.com>,
Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760 <9758-26353> wrote:
>
>
>jls@summit.novell.com (Schilling J.) 
>
> > because there's a real question as to how much C++ is actually being
> > used out there.
>
>Really?
>
>Of course, keeping your eyes closed is a good way to be sure
>not to see anything see anything you don't want to see.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Like that above, for example?  :)
Come on, now, that really is a smiley there at the end, fully meant.

Pat Rogers
progers@acm.org

Re: C/C++ does not exist!

[Schilling J.]

In article <D31MFK.Ao0@research.att.com> bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
>
>jls@summit.novell.com (Schilling J.) 
>
> > because there's a real question as to how much C++ is actually being
> > used out there.
>
>Really?
>
>Of course, keeping your eyes closed is a good way to be sure
>not to see anything see anything you don't want to see.
>
>	- Bjarne

Whoa!  My eyes are open.  I work on C++ compilers and libraries, I'd *like*
to see them get used by lots and lots of people.  I've also worked on Ada 
compilers, I'd like to see them get used too.  Anything wrong with that?

Yes, there is a real question about how much C++, like any language, is
being used, and for what.   It certainly gets used a lot more than Ada, 
there's no question about that.  What I'm interested in is the share of 
this (to me bogus) "C/C++" language that C++ has.  For instance, when you 
quote Borland C++ sales figures in D&E, that's for a combination product 
that many people may (or may not!) use only as a C compiler.  It's hard
to measure.  Similarly, the Novell UnixWare SDK now includes both C and C++ 
as standard items, so we have no direct way of measuring who's using what.

I'm not bringing this up in the context of the "C++ backlash", if such
a thing exists, but rather in the context of real resource allocation
issues:  for instance, what level of resources should Novell allocate
to the UnixWare C++ compiler and libraries, relative to other non-C++-
specific development environment features?  All I'm saying is that the
lumping together of C and C++ that happens in products and in peoples'
discussions of C++ makes assessing the C++ language share a more 
difficult task than for other languages.

-- 
Jonathan Schilling
Novell, UNIX Systems Group
jls@summit.novell.com

Re: C/C++ does not exist!

[Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760]

jls@summit.novell.com (Schilling J.) writes:

 > What I'm interested in is the share of 
 > this (to me bogus) "C/C++" language that C++ has.  For instance, when you 
 > quote Borland C++ sales figures in D&E, that's for a combination product 
 > that many people may (or may not!) use only as a C compiler.  It's hard
 > to measure.  Similarly, the Novell UnixWare SDK now includes both C and C++ 
 > as standard items, so we have no direct way of measuring who's using what.

When I talk to people, most who claims to have used C++ on real projects
define classes and define virtual functions. People who use the various
graphics systems and foundation libraries of course use non-C parts of C++
extensively, but indirectly.

I have heard someone whose opinions I respect and who have
access to Borland support records claim that ``about 60% of C++ use
directly involves class definition and/or inheritance'' (i.e. not just
the use of library classes). My own observations from C++ projects within
AT&T and elsewhere indicates a much higher percentage of ``adventurous''
C++ use, but I don't make the mistake of assuming that my sample is
typical.

There is certainly a LOT of C++ as C use out there, but that is partly
because any significant fraction of a large number is itself a large
number. Another reason, is that many are working their way up the
learning curve so that early code will be very C-like. My experience,
however, is that people do get to use C++ features and techniques
well beyond the C level - as opposed to getting permanently stuck
at the C-level as is often (and sometimes wistfully) conjectured.

 > I'm not bringing this up in the context of the "C++ backlash", if such
 > a thing exists, but rather in the context of real resource allocation
 > issues:  for instance, what level of resources should Novell allocate
 > to the UnixWare C++ compiler and libraries, relative to other non-C++-
 > specific development environment features?  All I'm saying is that the
 > lumping together of C and C++ that happens in products and in peoples'
 > discussions of C++ makes assessing the C++ language share a more 
 > difficult task than for other languages.

Agreed, and sorry for mistaking you for a flamer.

My experience is that if you support C++ specific programming styles,
they will be used, and often used well. If you support C styles only,
you will minimize C++ specific techiques (and your productivity and
maintainability :-). The fact that C++ often gives significant
benefits even with poor tool support shouldn't deter people from
producing better tool.

	- Bjarne