Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!botter!star!jos
From: jos@cs.vu.nl (Jos Warmer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ as a better C (fact or fiction)?
Message-ID: <706@vlot.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 9 May 88 07:56:23 GMT
References: <6590041@hplsla.HP.COM>
Reply-To: jos@cs.vu.nl (Jos Warmer)
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 28

In article <6590041@hplsla.HP.COM> bobk@hplsla.HP.COM (Bob Kunz) writes:
>
>I recently attended the AT&T training on C++ and an interesting question
>came up in one of the discussions about the use of C++ "simply as a 
>better C".  The opinions ranged from only use C++ if you intend to use
>all it's features to it's fine to use as a better C because it has type
>checking and one can choose to use the other features if one wants to.
>
>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?
>
We have been using C++ entirely for several years now.
Recently, we committed ourselves to writing a big program
(50000 lines) in C

We decided to use C++ as a "better C" in this project and it worked out
very well.  We used C++ used in a lint-like manner.
Many hours of debugging were saved by the type-checking and
argument-checking facilities of C++.

I would advise using C++ to anyone. If not for its extra facilities,
then at least for use as a MUCH better lint.

				  Jos Warmer
				  jos@cs.vu.nl