Linked by David Adams on Sun 14th Aug 2011 22:41 UTC, submitted by subterrific
General Development The final ISO ballot on C++0x closed on Wednesday, and we just received the results: Unanimous approval. The next revision of C++ that we've been calling "C++0x" is now an International Standard! Geneva will take several months to publish it, but we hope it will be published well within the year, and then we'll be able to call it "C++11."
Thread beginning with comment 484996
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Vagrant on Mon 15th Aug 2011 04:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Vagrant
Member since:
2011-08-15

Because C++ is far more powerful than C or Objective-C and people who program for a living don't find C++ too complicated.

C is completely inappropriate for large projects. And for small ones, C++ can do anything that C can do, and better.

Objective-C (and Objective-C++) are really just layers on top of C (and C++). Objective-C is cool, but it is not a low-level language like C++.

C++ is a lower-level language than C and Object-C, but it has all of the high-level tools for building any sort of project. It is a truly general-purpose lange, where the other two are not.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by Hypnos on Mon 15th Aug 2011 06:36 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
Hypnos Member since:
2008-11-19

What in Obj-C prevents you from using the low-level features of C ?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by Aragorn992 on Mon 15th Aug 2011 08:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

Because C++ is far more powerful than C or Objective-C and people who program for a living don't find C++ too complicated.

C is completely inappropriate for large projects. And for small ones, C++ can do anything that C can do, and better.

Objective-C (and Objective-C++) are really just layers on top of C (and C++). Objective-C is cool, but it is not a low-level language like C++.

C++ is a lower-level language than C and Object-C, but it has all of the high-level tools for building any sort of project. It is a truly general-purpose lange, where the other two are not.


Look. C++ is not "lower-level" than C. It IS C with some higher-level constructs (OO, STL, etc).

C++ I also prefer but one thing C++ can't do, which C can, is produce nice small binaries. Thats a major problem on embedded (e.g. satellite) platforms.

Edited 2011-08-15 08:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by burnttoys on Mon 15th Aug 2011 11:47 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
burnttoys Member since:
2008-12-20

Because C++ is far more powerful than C or Objective-C and people who program for a living don't find C++ too complicated.


No. C++ has many more _features_. You can, and I have, implemented a complete OO system using raw C. C++ does that for you. C++ including STL and even Boost has a very large number of CompSci features.

C is completely inappropriate for large projects. And for small ones, C++ can do anything that C can do, and better.


Nonsense. To this day C still implements most OS kernels and large amounts of other code such as audio processing, jpeg, mpeg etc. C++ can do a lot and is a superset of C (mostly - there are a very small number of exceptions to this rule).

It is true that some programming languages suit certain problem areas better than others it is not accurate to say that "C is inappropriate for big projects".

What's required for a big project, more than anything else, are clear goals, good communications and good project leads and an easily accessible project structure.

Also - good code is good code whether LISP, C or Prolog... ok, maybe not Prolog!

Objective-C (and Objective-C++) are really just layers on top of C (and C++). Objective-C is cool, but it is not a low-level language like C++.


I'll half agree with you if you can explain why Objective-C isn't "low-level" (hint - dynamic binding and method invocation). It is difficult to make "rommable" code with Objective-C (it is quite hard to C++ - you may need RAM for virtual function tables)

Objective-C is ALSO a superset of C and therefore contains all the "low-levelness" that C offers.

C++ is a lower-level language than C and Object-C, but it has all of the high-level tools for building any sort of project. It is a truly general-purpose lange, where the other two are not.


C++ as a superset of C is NOT "lower level". You see at this point I realised you are just talking balderdash. If you are a CompSci student I hope I do not put you off but you clearly have some learning to do.

C is about as low-level as you'd ever want to get (there's asm but it is naturally unportable - even that's only 1/2 true as I wrote a Z80 assembler for a 68000 machine that assembled Z80 code into 68000 ops)

C++ is a strict superset of C. Everything that is in C is in C++ (except for a handful of idiomatic, slightly esoteric, syntax).

All are "general purpose programming languages" and technically only differ by syntax, although extrapolating that argument to it's illogical extreme would have us all attempting to code everything using SKI notation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by ebasconp on Mon 15th Aug 2011 22:45 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

+1.

I do not understand why this comment was modded down if it is actually very accurate.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by sithlord2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 10:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
sithlord2 Member since:
2009-04-02


C++ is a lower-level language than C and Object-C


Excuse me? How exactly is C++ lower-level than C? The only thing more low-level than C, is pure assembly language. C++ is just C, extended with a lot of OO features.

Please tell me one "low-level" task that can be accomplished by C++, and not in regular C?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Tue 16th Aug 2011 16:07 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yeah, this is so blatantly inaccurate I can't figure out how it escaped getting voted down to oblivion.

EDIT : Off with this never-closed bold tag ! I think the OSnews comment system should get some automatic tag closing mechanism. Notifying Adam of this.

Edited 2011-08-16 16:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2