Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/05/13/23:54:56
On Fri, 13 May 2016, M. J. Everitt (m DOT j DOT everitt AT iee DOT org) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
<snip>
I really don't want to trigger a language flamewar, just want to state
that this is not that black and white as "C is obsolete and everyone wants
C++ instead". NOTE: I do _not_ suggest anything about gschem vs.
languages here, just want to represent a different viewpoint and get some
facts straight in the general C vs. C++ question.
> The argument of switching to C to c++ barely exists .. the languages are
> comparable, with the added benefit of more features in C++ than pure C.
>
Pretty much up to personal preference.
Personal preferences: for me and some others, the C vs. C++ barely exists
because we find C a much better choice than C++. One of the reasons is
exactly the excess amount of feature stuffed in C++, which we think is not
a benefit but a drawback.
Side note: people like me also don't believe it's about "system
programming" vs. "application development".
> I would also suspect there is still active development of the c++
Fact: C gets active development too. The last standard released is C11.
There are many C compilers out there that are actively developed, daily.
Honestly, I don't really see any sign of the end-of-life of C in the next
10 years.
> language, so that provides a good future-proof pathway.
Becuse of the above two, and because any C++ programmer will be able to
hack C code too, I think it's quiet the opposite: C is at least as
future-proof as C++.
I don't like long term predictions, but I think C is even more
future-proof than C++. C++ is huge and still growing fast which poses an
extra risk exactly on the field where it is supposed to beat C. As others
already mentioned, new generations of programmers may prefer more modern
(and less fuzzy) languages, like rust. My random long term prediction is
that C++ is more likely to be replaced by some
greatest-latest-more-advanced OOP language; because there's much more
interest in creating new language on this field, and because C++ is much
closer to collapse under it's on weight (e.g. how many years does it take
for a new programmer to truely learn C++, all features included? And
what's the release period of new C++ standards?)
(C is growing too, unfortunately: C11 introduces a lot of new features
compared to C99 and removes only a little amount of obsolete stuff.)
Again, I don't want to get into a "my favorite language is better than
yours". I don't want to convince anyone about anything. Especially that
such changes/aspects wouldn't affect me in any way neither in pcb
(because of pcb-rnd) nor in geda/gaf/gschem (because of my rewrite plans).
I merely wanted to state there's a minority opinion, when saw the above
totally C++-biased mail. Just for the record.
Regards,
Igor2
- Raw text -