Message-Id: <199703261721.LAA16097@mail.sockets.net>
Reply-To: <cwhizard AT sockets DOT net>
From: "Anthony Q. Bachler, BAS" <cwhizard AT sockets DOT net>
To: "Casper" <5015 DOT 7889 AT trader DOT com>, <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: C vs. C++
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:15:41 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Not true.  The main differences between C and C++ are stronger data typing
in C++ (quoted from a book).  The transition is far from painless, but as
for relearning?  I think you really only have to learn some new
restrictions.  Unless you absolutely have to have classes, theres really no
reason to use C++.  I learned C++ after I learned C and I found it to be
just a matter of reading the book whenever I got compile errors.  It was
usually something very simple to fix.
::-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
C code is like assholes, everyone's stinks but your own.
Looking at C code is like looking at your bedroom, a 
  complete mess to everone else, but you can tell them 
  where every little thing is.
C code is like Ex-Lax, easy going when it works but a
  pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Explaining why C is better than Pascal is like explaining 
  why peanut butter is better than toe jam.
Explaining why Assembler is better than anything is like 
  explaining why being deaf is better than listening to 
  'The artist formerly known as Prince'.

----------
> From: Casper <5015 DOT 7889 AT trader DOT com>
> To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
> Subject: Re: C vs. C++
> Date: Tuesday, March 25, 1997 20:16
> 
> If you are pretty well indoctrinated into C, it will be difficult
> to make the transition to C++.  There are several subtle
> differences in which you basically have to relearn most of
> the basic command structures
> 
> Casper