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