[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: c code vs c++ code
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: c code vs c++ code
- From: Steve Baker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 09:20:17 -0600
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- Delivered-To: mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivery-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:23:50 -0500
- Mailing-List: contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm
- References: <20021124110121.GC2021@ypisco.com>
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204
Jason Stechschulte wrote:
> The main reason I started trying to write games in Linux was to re-learn
> C++. I hadn't used it since my University days roughly 5 years ago.
> Now I'm feeling comfortable with it once again, so I started downloading
> other open source games and looking through the source code.
> I noticed that most games that are written using C++ code still use C
> code for many things.
Caveat: Language debates make for LONG and painful flame wars.
In the end, everyone has their opinions.
However, I write in the style you are talking about and I'll
explain why. There is no need for the "use all of C++" guys to
try to pursuade me otherwise. I've been using C++ since the very
first AT&T C++ translator - written by Bjarne himself.
Although C++ is the only language I use on a regular basis, I think it
is cluttered, overly complex and very hard to understand if you use
all of it's features.
C is relatively clean and simple - but lacks classes - and
Object-Oriented programming is the best new language paradigm
since the discovery of Structured Programming.
So, I tend to program in some kind of intermediate language which
I guess you'd have to call "Object Oriented C". C+ maybe. :-)
So, I still use the C standard I/O library - but I use classes,
derived classes, virtual functions, overloaded functions, inlined
functions and optional arguments. But I steer clear of exceptions,
templates, streams and all the rest of the C++ fluff.
That's a personal thing - but it's what I'm most comfortable
and productive with. I know a lot of people who use all of
C++'s bells and whistles - and people who never got into classes
at all - none of them write code with the speed and reliability
that I do.
Bjarne Stroustrup (who invented C++) once famously said:
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot;
C++ makes it harder, but when you do,
it blows away your whole leg."
That's a very true - and honest - expression of the situation.
However, in my opinion, there is a happy medium - where it's
sufficiently difficult to shoot yourself that you don't do it
too often - but when you do, the size of the wound is tolerable.
> I'm wondering if there is some benefit to using the C code rather than
> the C++ code. Is it possibly better for porting to other systems? Or
> is it simply programmer preference?
Programmer preference - I'm sure.
> Since there is a standard for C++, I would think that it is probably
> because the programmer is more familiar with C and is used to using it.
No - I'm quite familiar with all the bits of C++ that I don't use.
> I know that C code is normally faster than C++ code...
That's not true. C++ *allows* you to write code that's much less
efficient than C does - but it doesn't force you to.
The first C++ implementation (which I used for a couple of years)
was a translator from C++ into C. You could see that the lines of
C code it produced were simple and there weren't large numbers of
> but I wouldn't
> think that file handling would be something that needed to be highly
> optimized for speed.
No - but I just dislike overloading operators - it leads to *nasty*
suprises and extremely subtle bugs of the "blow your leg off" kind.
IMHO, stream I/O was originally just an example of how you could
use operator overloading to change the way a subsystem like file I/O
works. I don't think Bjarne originally intended it to be THE ONE
TRUE WAY to do file I/O.
There was nothing wrong with stdio - it was a non-problem and it
didn't need fixing. You can argue that's not the case - but just
look at the numbers of people who still use it in preference to
---------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------
HomeEmail: <email@example.com> WorkEmail: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
HomePage : http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net