Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!gamma!ulysses!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ as a better C (fact or fiction)?
Message-ID: <7853@alice.UUCP>
Date: 6 May 88 20:49:04 GMT
References: <6590041@hplsla.HP.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 29

In article <6590041@hplsla.HP.COM>, bobk@hplsla.UUCP writes:
 
> What's the opinion of the net?  Have people used C++ as a better C and
> been successful?  Or do people only consider C++ when speaking object
> oriented in the same breath?  Does the problem need to be solvable by
> object oriented techniques before C++ is considered?  Why did you not
> use C?  And would an ANSI-C compiler have made a difference?

Yes, people have used C++ as a better C and been successful.
Doing so is an excellent way to get your feet wet.

If you have an ANSI C compiler, it will give you many of the
``better C'' things of C++, but not all.  For instance,

	int f();

in ANSI C means

	``f is a function returning int and I haven't said anything
	  about its arguments''

This is essential for C compatibility, but it encourages sloppy
coding and suppresses type checking.  The same declaration in C++
means

	``f is a function returning int with no arguments''

And, of course, once you start using C++ as ``a better C'' you will
find it much easier to explore the other aspects of the language.