11 ms·

Why C++ is vastly superior to C

48 points by tree_of_item 15y ago

ColinWright 15y ago
<fx: sigh> For some things, C++ is better than C. For some things Lisp is better than either, and for yet other things, Python is better than them all. Why are people so insistent on declaring their view is absolutely right, with no arguments, everyone else is wrong, and that one language will rule them all? Trust me. For some things I do, C is vastly superior to C++, but I'm not going to try to convince everyone that C is better than C++ (or anything else) for everything that anyone wants to do. That would just make me look stupid.
- westi 15y ago
  Indeed. This article is more "why C++ makes this particular program easier to write" and is in no way any proof that C++ is better than C.
  - toadstone 15y ago
    On the other hand, I don't think I've ever written a program that doesn't use containers, manage memory, and handle errors.
- tree_of_item 15y ago
  I don't think this article is about declaring C++ the ruler of all languages. If you have an example of C being a better fit for a problem than C++, feel free to share it.
  - phirephly 15y ago
    Embedded systems, 128 bytes of RAM. I really do just want portable assembly.
    - eropple 15y ago
      But you don't have it, unfortunately. At that level C is just as unsuitable. Time to break out your assembler. ;)
    - thedigitalengel 15y ago
      To put that in perspective, 128 bytes is an x64 program's stack's red zone. :D
  - leon_ 15y ago
    > If you have an example of C being a better fit for a problem than C++, feel free to share it. http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/
  - jerf 15y ago
    http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2 http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&... http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643...
    - tree_of_item 15y ago
      The author of the OP also has a response to your second link: http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseToTorvalds.html http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseToTorvalds.html
- olavk 15y ago
  I think much language criticism miss the non-technical context which influences which language is the best tool for the job. We are good at providing technical arguments (Erlang is fun if you need concurrency, C is cool if you need to get close to the metal), but there are important non-technical issues. Things like: How many people is on the team who have to work on the code? How big is the turnover among the developers? How experienced are they? How long is the code going to live? Will some people have to jump in and fix bugs in the code on short notice? For example, I have noticed that I prefer a nice clean dynamic language like Python when I know I am only person on the project. But in cases where I had to work on and improve code of a dubious quality, I much prefer it to be in C#, since type analysis makes it a lot easier to figure things out and refactoring in a safer way. To put it another way: I like to work with nice clean code in Python or Haskell, but when I have to work with bad code, I prefer to work with bad C# code.
  - toadstone 15y ago
    I think you know you've cracked when you prefer bad C# to clean Haskell.
    - tree_of_item 15y ago
      Bad C# over bad Haskell, I think.
      - jerf 15y ago
        I have a... secret wish? private fantasy?... where I take a moderately complicated problem and outsource it to a known bad outsourcing company, but rigidly require that they write it in Haskell. Just to see what pops out.
    - olavk 15y ago
      Edited to be less ambiguous :)
  - gmartres 15y ago
    Are you saying that you can do better type analysis in C# than in Haskell?
- thedigitalengel 15y ago
  C and C++ have considerably overlap in use cases, which is what makes this argument valid. Comparing C or C++ to Ruby or LISP is stupid.
  - phamilton 15y ago
    Directly, yes. But comparing C or C++ to C# isn't completely off the mark. And comparing C# to Java isn't crazy either. And once you're at Java, there are plenty of cases where a comparison to Ruby or Lisp makes sense. So anytime a use case starts in Java (web, mobile, and desktop applications), I think there are very good comparisons to be had on which direction to go.
Spyro7 15y ago
I know that C++ has some pretty neat features, but I feel comfortable and productive enough in C. I have never really felt that there was anything in C++ that I just had to have. If I need to something higher level there are plenty of choices of that already, and C is a great language for extending applications done in a higher level language. I think that the author has some good points. but I think both languages have the places where they excel. To say that one is "vastly superior" to the other is a mistake. If C++ was really "vastly superior" to C then why are so many people still using C and using it productively?
- mojuba 15y ago
  > If C++ was really "vastly superior" to C then why are so many people still using C and using it productively? Why are so many people using Java (perhaps even more than C and C++ combined)? Does it make a good language? Absolutely not. In the case of such simplistic languages as C and Java, it's their simplicity that makes them a popular choice. Productivity: I am not sure all the C folks are as productive as they could've been if they switched to C++. Same people. The complexity of C++ is not only in the amount of new concepts compared to C, it is also in greater risks of producing bloated binaries. Too much knowledge and caution is required to keep C++ code maintainable in this regard. That's a drawback, but if you ask me, I'd never give up RAII, implicit destruction and exceptions for C; I'd rather understand them better in order to use them properly. And finally, the article would look much nicer without the insults closer to the end.
  - jpr 15y ago
    > I am not sure all the C folks are as productive as they could've been if they switched to C++. Same people. I'm pretty sure that C folks are much more productive using C than C++. Hating the tools you are using tends to lower productivity to a halt.
  - Spyro7 15y ago
    "Why are so many people using Java (perhaps even more than C and C++ combined)?" Well, one contributing factor is that a lot of universities now have a heavily Java based curriculum (turning their CS programs into vocational schools, but I digress). Another contributing factor is that Java has managed to carve itself a niche in which it is used extensively ("enterprise" applications - with all of the wonderful ambiguity that the word "enterprise" carries nowadays). One more thing in Java's favor is just simple momentum. There are a lot of Java libraries that just plain work (and some work extremely well). There are a lot of applications on the corporate side that use Java. Regardless of whether you or I like the language or not, Java has apparently proven itself useful to a broad swathe of people. It may not be an exciting language, but then neither is Cobol and it still exists as well (and puts food on quite a few tables). Then there is the venerable JVM, which is actually an amazing piece of software engineering that has enabled the development of a wave of innovative new languages. Of course, one of the features of many of these new languages is the ability to drop down into Java for speed (now before anyone starts sneering, Java is actually not doing to bad on that front right now). "Does it make a good language? Absolutely not." Perhaps not in your opinion, but their are others who are quite fond of it. That's the problem with these type of pronouncements. What makes a "good language" varies from person to person. Disclaimer: I have used Java for some small projects in the past - I may be somewhat biased. Edit: Embarrassing grammatical flaws.
wmobit 15y ago
The containers problem is the only one I find really annoying, and is more of a problem with the C standard library than the language. Using C with something like glib is a much nicer experience.
- uriel 15y ago
  If you can't write your own linked lists or hash tables, you should not be programming in C. Glib is an abomination by people and for people that didn't understand C. Just like GNU is by people and for people that didn't understand UNIX.
  - andrewcooke 15y ago
    ugh. you're using c? that's just an abomination for people that don't understand assembler.
dfox 15y ago
Why C is vastly superior to C++: $ cat > foo.c #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char**argv){ puts("hello world"); return 0; } ^D $ cat > foo.cxx #include <iostream> int main(int argc, char**argv){ std::cout << "hello world" << std::endl; return 0; } ^D $ time gcc -o hello-c foo.c real 0m0.039s user 0m0.020s sys 0m0.012s $ time g++ -o hello-c++ foo.cxx real 0m0.182s user 0m0.144s sys 0m0.028s
- CountHackulus 15y ago
  Great job measuring initialization time, now how about showing real world performance differences in actual large programs.
  - Kliment 15y ago
    That's compilation time, not initialization time. Compiling C++ is tremendously slow compared to compiling C programs of equivalent complexity, and is a real issue even on modern hardware.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - dfox 15y ago
    It is not about initialization time or even run-time performance, but about speed of compilation. When any non-trivial program in C++ takes minutes to build even on high end workstation all benefits that might come from it's "high level" features are moot.
    - toadstone 15y ago
      Are you really saying that the time and energy you save coding and debugging by using high level features aren't worth a few minutes of compile time? It won't even be a few minutes except for the first time because of separate compilation.
jerf 15y ago
When the argument is that C++ has too many features that interact in unpredictable ways and are virtually impossible to get right, arguing that C++ is superior because it has more features is perhaps a fine argument in some hypothetical universe in which the primary objection to C++ is that it is missing features, but by failing to grapple with the points raised by the opposition in the real universe, you will fail to convince anybody. Everybody already knows all of these features, they're practically in the canonical Introduction to C++ pitch, and they still don't think C++ is great. Maybe you need to spend a bit more time listening more carefully to why; you certainly need to if you expect to talk anybody out of it.
- vixeria 15y ago
  What are some of these C++ features that interact in unpredictable ways? Just curious.
  - jerf 15y ago
    http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defective.html http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defective.html isn't strictly limited to answering that question, but it touches on it a lot. I know I'm flinging links around a lot here, but, well, this is all well-covered ground.
    - thedigitalengel 15y ago
      Most of the points mentioned in that particular link pertains why both C and C++ are inferior to languages like LISP and Python which have garbage collectors, weak type system and the like. The bitching about bad compile time errors has been mostly fixed in clang. Then only _inconsistency_ (in the correct sense of the term) in C++ I am aware of is the unordered initialization of static objects. So if you have "class A { ... A () { } };" and have a "A foo;" declared somewhere with static linkage, it can be hard to pin down exactly _when_ that constructor will be called. It will be called before control is transferred to main, but you may want even finer control. If you have noticed other inconsistencies I'd love to know.
IgorPartola 15y ago
The "final straw" is easily overcome with unions. Also I do not buy the argument that you do not have to follow coding conventions in C++ or that explicitly freeing memory is a bad thing. Also comparing the number of lines of code to determine the "best" language is childish. By that logic the language with the largest std. lib is the best.
- mojuba 15y ago
  Aside from obvious type safety arguments, you want to combine a 'long long' and a 'char' into a union, and for example have a byte matrix occupy 8GB of RAM instead of just 1GB? If I were to defend C, I'd rather choose macros combined with plain typeless buffers. The choice between C and C++ in such cases is really a choice between the nightmare of wrong memory operations and total type unsafety on the one hand (C), and the nightmare of ineffective, bloated code on the other (C++). I believe the latter can be taken under control though.
leon_ 15y ago
is this an inflammatory troll submission?
- tree_of_item 15y ago
  No, I just see it taken for granted in most places that C++ was a mistake. The "general wisdom" is that C++ is too complicated for its own good and shouldn't be used for anything big (the C++ FQA is frequently cited). An article advocating the opposite position is nice.
tszming 15y ago
If the author changed the title to "Why C++ is vastly superior to C for application programming", than i would agree for the examples he given in the article.
- yannickt 15y ago
  I agree with you, however most posts I have seen bashing C++ for its complexity do it from the perspective of the systems programmer as well. So it is nice to see someone showing how C++ can be superior.
AshleysBrain 15y ago
Apart from "use the right tool for the job", I always did wonder how C programmers cope without the STL containers: std::vector, std::list, std::set, std::map etc. Sometimes I need to map a string to a list of numbers. std::map<std::string, std::vector<int> >. Done. All memory allocation taken care of for you as well - nothing to leak. In C, how do you get by? You either have to reinvent a red-black tree each time you want that, or use some kind of type-unsafe macro horror, or just not use that data structure. That seems to be a significant point of the article as well. Any C programmers care to enlighten me on this? Nowadays I couldn't code for long in C without thinking "screw this, I want a vector" and going back to C++.
- edderly 15y ago
  Fair point, but in systems programming where C is used a lot, the 'system' often/usually has the abstract data types you need, or you're in a lower level enough environment that you want your own custom/hardware specific solution. Crude example: http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ/LinkedLists http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ/LinkedLists
- Freaky 15y ago
  If you don't like macros (which are used quite a lot for this sort of thing - e.g. http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/sys/queue.h http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/sys/queue.h), void pointers and function pointers go a long way too. Nobody's writing red-black trees from scratch for every project, really.
jmspring 15y ago
I've found that whenever someone argues "X is best", they've only worked in projects where "X" makes sense for them. At a start up a couple of years ago, we had an intern that was all hot and bothered over C++ and boost. After he expanded is horizons to web development and investigating scripting languages, he really enjoyed Ruby. It depends on what you are working on, the libraries and tools available, and your comfort with what languages fit that paradigm. I use C++ and Java on a regular basis now, but prefer C for systems programming, and Python for general web/scripting stuff. Since we need to have a nit with C++ for this thread, can someone explain to me how debugging in C++ while using templates is superior?
- eropple 15y ago
  The answer to your question is "use Visual Studio." ;-) Or, at least, use clang. The gcc stack is pretty poor at dealing with templates, and its debugger is pretty baroque.
- theoj 15y ago
  +1 Use the right tool for the right job is the proper approach. Right tool depends on your project requirements.
16s 15y ago
C++ gets a bad wrap from people who have never seriously used it. I'm glad to see someone slapping back. It's a fine language that is very useful and will be for decades to come.
uriel 15y ago
I thought everyone knew this, because it creates more and better jobs[1]! [1] http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/I_did_it_for_you_all http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/I_did_it_for_you_all
- steve-howard 15y ago
  You no doubt know that that "interview" was a complete fabrication. Please don't present it as fact.
mitchi 15y ago
"A few of lines of C++ code would need hundreds, if not even thousands of lines of C code, but an experienced C programmer is used to that." Yea right. This guy is full of it. This article is very biased...
- eropple 15y ago
  Of course it's biased. It's also not really wrong on a lot of counts. You really can write more expressive, terser code in C++, that sacrifices no readability and only a very tiny bit of performance (on non-embedded platforms). Seriously--RAII alone saves approximately twelve hojillion lines of code (and saves you from hideous factory-pattern libraries spread hither and yon, which is also a plus). The flip side of that coin is that if you don't know what you're doing, you can blow off your leg, your friend's leg, and the legs of everyone in a twenty-foot radius.
jpr 15y ago
My reason why C++ is vastly inferior to C: It's just too goddamn easy to make a mess in C++ without noticing it. In C, if you make a mess, you will more likely notice it before it's unmanageable.
- thedigitalengel 15y ago
  Can you be more specific? I have a counter example (assuming I've understood you): /* C / int foo () { FILE x = fopen("bar"); return 0; } /* C++ */ int foo () { ifstream in("bar"); return 0; }
  - jpr 15y ago
    C assumes that you know the contracts that calling a function implies. fopen()'s contract requires you to close the file after you are done with it.
jergosh 15y ago
This post boils down to "Take C, add support for OO, a crapload of new syntax, standard library that 10x as large and ta-da! you can find problems which have simpler solutions than in C." There's a great post by Linus Torvalds about C vs. C++ in the kernel. Some excerpts: "My point being, that C++ adds absolutely nothing interesting." "C++ is a mess. There's no design. It's just "add crud on top of C". And the crud isn't even meaningful, much less does it have a design. It's totally and utterly random. It started out random, now it's randomness that gets added to by a committee." Whole thing: http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110577&threadid=110549&roomid=2 http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&...
- tree_of_item 15y ago
  The author of the OP has a pretty well written rebuttal to everything Torvalds has said about C++: http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseToTorvalds.html http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseToTorvalds.html
  - IvarTJ 15y ago
    That article is not very informative, and spends a lot of time characterizing Linus as someone with the “C-hacker syndrome.”
    - yannickt 15y ago
      I find the article to be vastly more informative than most of Linus' posts about C++, which usually read more like rants than well informed criticism. He does not characterize Linus as a "C-hacker", Linus does that himself by posting an opinion about C++ that completely lacks substance.
  - huhtenberg 15y ago
    I looked at the rebuttal and I couldn't make past the part where he argues against this point - It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it ... Even if the choice of C were to do nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out, that in itself would be a huge reason to use C* As someone who had substantial exposure to interviewing and hiring C and C++ programmers to add to a team of 250 it was bloody obvious that a lot of pure C++ programmers are the pompous know-it-alls who think they know C++, while C people are those with far more realistic self-assessment who actually do know the language. Linus got it absolutely right.
codegagan 15y ago
Its Object oriented features !
danieldk 15y ago
As usual, use the right tool for the job. Personally, I use C++ mostly, for different reasons: - There are some very good cross-platform toolkits available for C++ (such as Qt). - There is no C99 support in Visual Studio. At the same time, C++-98 works across all major compilers these days. - STL containers. However, C++ just is the best choice for the projects I am currently working on. For other projects, with fewer dependencies and no portability requirements beyond Unixy environments I prefer C. Nearly any language can be superior, depending on the project. The linked article attempts to show that C++ is superior based on some specific situations where this may indeed be the case.
atlei 15y ago
I don't think any language is vastly superior to any other in every case. You can say that C++ is vastly more powerful (and flexible) than C, but for low-level/embedded/kernel etc development, many would argue that C is the superior language. Many people would also argue that C++ is maybe too powerful and complex; you can do everything with it, but sometimes this makes it hard to decide how to do "anything" (procedural ? Object-oriented ? Using templates ?). Lots of people (myself included) find it so complex that they only use a subset of it - "the good parts". However, agreeing which parts to use is often impossible. I've written about about what I consider "the good parts" here: - http://www.ppcsoft.com/blog/c-star.asp http://www.ppcsoft.com/blog/c-star.asp
ctz 15y ago
Counterpoint to the C++ fragment in "Error handling" section: void foo() { Matrix *a = new Matrix(1000, 1000); Matrix *b = new Matrix(1000, 1000); delete b; delete a; } Pretending exceptions solve error handling gets you a big fat zero. Look at boost: despite being written by C++ experts and held up as an excellent library (which it is!), it contains exception-unsafe portions. Why? Total exception safety is just as hard as the original error handling problem.
- simoncion 15y ago
  Counterpoint to your counterpoint: void foo() { typedef std::auto_ptr<Matrix> matAP; matAP a(new Matrix(1000, 1000)); matAP b(new Matrix(1000, 1000)); }
- anonymous246 15y ago
  I don't think it's because the Boost guys thought it "too hard". Having seen/used some of those libraries, I'm 100% sure they can handle the alleged "hardness". C++ in general values performance over safety almost everywhere (just like C). That's probably why they made certain parts exception-unsafe.
mklencke 15y ago
The RAII benefits are definitely there and STL containers are pretty awesome, but you can still create generic containers in C by using void pointers. For example, a simple vector API: typedef struct { void *elements; int elem_size; int n; } Vector; Vector *vector_new(int elem_size); void vector_free(Vector *v); void vector_push(Vector *v, void *elem); void vector_pop(Vector *v); int vector_size(Vector *v); void *vector_at(Vector *v, int i); etc. This is off the top of my head, but you get the idea. You can basically put anything you want in there as long as you say how large the elements are upon initialization. There is a good book on generic C programming: http://sites.google.com/site/cinterfacesimplementations/ http://sites.google.com/site/cinterfacesimplementations/
- rbonvall 15y ago
  The problem with using void* pointers is that every access to an element costs one extra dereference operation. By using C++ templates, the compiler can create object code specifically compiled for each data type, without the need for pointers. (On the other hand, this can make C++ binaries much larger).
  - mklencke 15y ago
    In this case, I'm not storing void pointers in the data structure, but I'm using the void pointer as a direct address into "elements". The memory layout is just a sequence of items of length elem_size. vector_push copies the item into that memory (and doubles the size of "elements" with realloc when necessary).
    - anonymous246 15y ago
      So you have a memcpy() call in vector_push? I wonder if that's less efficient than a straight-up assignment for small objects such as integers. The C++ equivalent can be further optimized during instruction generation by keeping things in the CPU registers as long as possible. In your C case, the int has to be written to memory before memcpy can load it into its buffer.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
starpilot 15y ago
Novice question: Why is C++ used for the vast majority of video games today? Why is it used for most commercial CFD codes? (A lot of codes in academia still use tons of legacy fortran though.)
- sehugg 15y ago
  I think this post sums it up pretty nicely: http://www.gamearchitect.net/Articles/WhyC++.html http://www.gamearchitect.net/Articles/WhyC++.html Personally I think the advantages boil down to syntax and type-safety. For example, vector math is much more succinct and can be made type-safe. Constructors/destructors also can be handy for enforcing resource allocation.
- malkia 15y ago
  yes, but you are not allowed to use exceptions, and the latter being major feature of the language puts one in strange situation.
tzs 15y ago
The problem with C++ is that the language is too damn big. This results in most programmers only learning really well a subset of the language. Unfortunately, different programmers end up with different subsets. I'd like to see some de facto standardization on subsets. For instance, there could be Basic C++. When programming Basic C++ you use it like C with the following C++ features added: constructors, destructors, references, std::string, and maybe the STL collections. Simple Object C++ could be Basic C++ plus single inheritance. The on top of that, we could add things like multiple inheritance, operator overloading, templates, and so on.
- thedigitalengel 15y ago
  Most projects have a set of coding guidelines. I don't see why it cannot specify things like: "Don't use operator overloading!". Google does, for one thing. Without discipline both C and C++ will blow you up completely. With some discipline both the languages are manageable, and C++ more so; which is what the OP points out.
  - peterbotond 15y ago
    that's exactly right and correct. any language can be screwed up without descipline, and understanding of the solution trying to be implemented. me for example, put comments in code that what direction of design, execution path is taken to correct less efficient idioms. so, at a later time, new code can be added with some direction. this prevents the urge to copy and paste by the new guy. coding guidelines are also to include programming idioms, primitives, to use and build the solution around it. for c++, c and others i wrote many of guidelines, and seeing the benefit later i can say the above.
rwmj 15y ago
This article should be "why C++ is vastly superior to C for multiplying and adding 3 matrices if you're not a very good C programmer".
- tree_of_item 15y ago
  So how would a very good C programmer implement this example? I don't think you can No True Scotsman your way around RAII and templates.
malkia 15y ago
highly opinionanted article. C++ breaks at places, where the compiler is instructed to not optimize (debug builds), and say operator overloading have been used for simple types, which creates function calls, rather than inlining it, while "C" approach (functon calls) would've worked not so slow. Talking from real experience, after coworker rolled heavy templated C++ math library for all consoles and PC, that worked very good in release, but debug builds crawled to 10 times slower. The problem is that this library forced everyone to use it's types, interfaces, etc. - so the effect was spreading everywhere. Instead you should only do such things isolated, and provie "c" interface (for example zeromq does that). Also do not propagate exceptions to client, especially if you are some middleware not used for the core of the things (for example social service api, advertisement api, or anything small used just as service). Better do exceptions internally, and provide error codes or callbacks for client. Exceptions do not work on certain very popular gaming devices for examlple, and the user of your library might want to avoid them for other reasons so do your best C++ in secret, if you want, provide us C interface
KonradKlause 15y ago
The Dark Side of C++ http://www.fefe.de/c++/c%2b%2b-talk.pdf http://www.fefe.de/c++/c%2b%2b-talk.pdf
- mitchi 15y ago
  a very good read.
edanm 15y ago
Interesting article. One major problem - it doesn't seem like the OP has ever actually used C for real world code. I say this as someone with a few years of experience with C (and a few years of C++). None of the examples he showed of C code look like they were actually written by a C programmer. A lot of use of "goto"'s, for one thing. It looks like he tried reimplementing C++ in C. Actually, that's exactly what he decided must be done: " If the C version wishes to match the C++ version in speed and memory usage, it will have to basically simulate the C++ implementation using a struct and functions which handle objects of that struct type (including things like initialization and destruction)." So obviously, if you set out from the start with the assumption that to use a language, you have to reimplement another language in it, then of course you'll come to the conclusion that you should just use the other language. But that's not a conclusion that C programmers would be comfortable with. By the way, as just one nitpick, I'd probably implement that Matrix with "void *" pointers, letting me substitute any struct I want in there later. Just my way of solving the "impossible to solve" problem he presents at the end.
blacksmythe 15y ago
Many people believe that C++ has useful features that improve the ability of the average programmer to write application programs. One problem is that different companies use different subsets. (The question of which language the Linux kernel should be written in is of limited interest.) We could name a restricted subset of C++ as C+-. Many high quality and well-tested development tools for C+- already exist (the C++ tools). Now the problem remains of standardizing C+-. The most logical C+- variant to standardize on is the C++ subset used by the largest group of people, presumably the version defined by Google: http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml#Inheritance http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.x... Now the question becomes is it easier for average programmers to build application programs using C or C+-? Using C+- or C? These are perhaps more useful questions than the long running C vs C++ debate.

48 points by tree_of_item 15y ago

<fx: sigh> For some things, C++ is better than C. For some things Lisp is better than either, and for yet other things, Python is better than them all. Why are people so insistent on declaring their view is absolutely right, with no arguments, everyone else is wrong, and that one language will rule them all? Trust me. For some things I do, C is vastly superior to C++, but I'm not going to try to convince everyone that C is better than C++ (or anything else) for everything that anyone wants to do. That would just make me look stupid.

westi 15y ago
Indeed. This article is more "why C++ makes this particular program easier to write" and is in no way any proof that C++ is better than C.
- toadstone 15y ago
  On the other hand, I don't think I've ever written a program that doesn't use containers, manage memory, and handle errors.
tree_of_item 15y ago
I don't think this article is about declaring C++ the ruler of all languages. If you have an example of C being a better fit for a problem than C++, feel free to share it.
- phirephly 15y ago
  Embedded systems, 128 bytes of RAM. I really do just want portable assembly.
  - eropple 15y ago
    But you don't have it, unfortunately. At that level C is just as unsuitable. Time to break out your assembler. ;)
  - thedigitalengel 15y ago
    To put that in perspective, 128 bytes is an x64 program's stack's red zone. :D
- leon_ 15y ago
  > If you have an example of C being a better fit for a problem than C++, feel free to share it. http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/
- jerf 15y ago
  http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2 http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&... http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643...
  - tree_of_item 15y ago
    The author of the OP also has a response to your second link: http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseToTorvalds.html http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseToTorvalds.html
olavk 15y ago
I think much language criticism miss the non-technical context which influences which language is the best tool for the job. We are good at providing technical arguments (Erlang is fun if you need concurrency, C is cool if you need to get close to the metal), but there are important non-technical issues. Things like: How many people is on the team who have to work on the code? How big is the turnover among the developers? How experienced are they? How long is the code going to live? Will some people have to jump in and fix bugs in the code on short notice? For example, I have noticed that I prefer a nice clean dynamic language like Python when I know I am only person on the project. But in cases where I had to work on and improve code of a dubious quality, I much prefer it to be in C#, since type analysis makes it a lot easier to figure things out and refactoring in a safer way. To put it another way: I like to work with nice clean code in Python or Haskell, but when I have to work with bad code, I prefer to work with bad C# code.
- toadstone 15y ago
  I think you know you've cracked when you prefer bad C# to clean Haskell.
  - tree_of_item 15y ago
    Bad C# over bad Haskell, I think.
    - jerf 15y ago
      I have a... secret wish? private fantasy?... where I take a moderately complicated problem and outsource it to a known bad outsourcing company, but rigidly require that they write it in Haskell. Just to see what pops out.
  - olavk 15y ago
    Edited to be less ambiguous :)
- gmartres 15y ago
  Are you saying that you can do better type analysis in C# than in Haskell?
thedigitalengel 15y ago
C and C++ have considerably overlap in use cases, which is what makes this argument valid. Comparing C or C++ to Ruby or LISP is stupid.
- phamilton 15y ago
  Directly, yes. But comparing C or C++ to C# isn't completely off the mark. And comparing C# to Java isn't crazy either. And once you're at Java, there are plenty of cases where a comparison to Ruby or Lisp makes sense. So anytime a use case starts in Java (web, mobile, and desktop applications), I think there are very good comparisons to be had on which direction to go.

Spyro7 15y ago

I know that C++ has some pretty neat features, but I feel comfortable and productive enough in C. I have never really felt that there was anything in C++ that I just had to have. If I need to something higher level there are plenty of choices of that already, and C is a great language for extending applications done in a higher level language. I think that the author has some good points. but I think both languages have the places where they excel. To say that one is "vastly superior" to the other is a mistake. If C++ was really "vastly superior" to C then why are so many people still using C and using it productively?

mojuba 15y ago
> If C++ was really "vastly superior" to C then why are so many people still using C and using it productively? Why are so many people using Java (perhaps even more than C and C++ combined)? Does it make a good language? Absolutely not. In the case of such simplistic languages as C and Java, it's their simplicity that makes them a popular choice. Productivity: I am not sure all the C folks are as productive as they could've been if they switched to C++. Same people. The complexity of C++ is not only in the amount of new concepts compared to C, it is also in greater risks of producing bloated binaries. Too much knowledge and caution is required to keep C++ code maintainable in this regard. That's a drawback, but if you ask me, I'd never give up RAII, implicit destruction and exceptions for C; I'd rather understand them better in order to use them properly. And finally, the article would look much nicer without the insults closer to the end.
- jpr 15y ago
  > I am not sure all the C folks are as productive as they could've been if they switched to C++. Same people. I'm pretty sure that C folks are much more productive using C than C++. Hating the tools you are using tends to lower productivity to a halt.
- Spyro7 15y ago
  "Why are so many people using Java (perhaps even more than C and C++ combined)?" Well, one contributing factor is that a lot of universities now have a heavily Java based curriculum (turning their CS programs into vocational schools, but I digress). Another contributing factor is that Java has managed to carve itself a niche in which it is used extensively ("enterprise" applications - with all of the wonderful ambiguity that the word "enterprise" carries nowadays). One more thing in Java's favor is just simple momentum. There are a lot of Java libraries that just plain work (and some work extremely well). There are a lot of applications on the corporate side that use Java. Regardless of whether you or I like the language or not, Java has apparently proven itself useful to a broad swathe of people. It may not be an exciting language, but then neither is Cobol and it still exists as well (and puts food on quite a few tables). Then there is the venerable JVM, which is actually an amazing piece of software engineering that has enabled the development of a wave of innovative new languages. Of course, one of the features of many of these new languages is the ability to drop down into Java for speed (now before anyone starts sneering, Java is actually not doing to bad on that front right now). "Does it make a good language? Absolutely not." Perhaps not in your opinion, but their are others who are quite fond of it. That's the problem with these type of pronouncements. What makes a "good language" varies from person to person. Disclaimer: I have used Java for some small projects in the past - I may be somewhat biased. Edit: Embarrassing grammatical flaws.

wmobit 15y ago

The containers problem is the only one I find really annoying, and is more of a problem with the C standard library than the language. Using C with something like glib is a much nicer experience.

uriel 15y ago
If you can't write your own linked lists or hash tables, you should not be programming in C. Glib is an abomination by people and for people that didn't understand C. Just like GNU is by people and for people that didn't understand UNIX.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  ugh. you're using c? that's just an abomination for people that don't understand assembler.

dfox 15y ago

Why C is vastly superior to C++: $ cat > foo.c #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char**argv){ puts("hello world"); return 0; } ^D $ cat > foo.cxx #include <iostream> int main(int argc, char**argv){ std::cout << "hello world" << std::endl; return 0; } ^D $ time gcc -o hello-c foo.c real 0m0.039s user 0m0.020s sys 0m0.012s $ time g++ -o hello-c++ foo.cxx real 0m0.182s user 0m0.144s sys 0m0.028s

CountHackulus 15y ago
Great job measuring initialization time, now how about showing real world performance differences in actual large programs.
- Kliment 15y ago
  That's compilation time, not initialization time. Compiling C++ is tremendously slow compared to compiling C programs of equivalent complexity, and is a real issue even on modern hardware.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- dfox 15y ago
  It is not about initialization time or even run-time performance, but about speed of compilation. When any non-trivial program in C++ takes minutes to build even on high end workstation all benefits that might come from it's "high level" features are moot.
  - toadstone 15y ago
    Are you really saying that the time and energy you save coding and debugging by using high level features aren't worth a few minutes of compile time? It won't even be a few minutes except for the first time because of separate compilation.

jerf 15y ago

When the argument is that C++ has too many features that interact in unpredictable ways and are virtually impossible to get right, arguing that C++ is superior because it has more features is perhaps a fine argument in some hypothetical universe in which the primary objection to C++ is that it is missing features, but by failing to grapple with the points raised by the opposition in the real universe, you will fail to convince anybody. Everybody already knows all of these features, they're practically in the canonical Introduction to C++ pitch, and they still don't think C++ is great. Maybe you need to spend a bit more time listening more carefully to why; you certainly need to if you expect to talk anybody out of it.

vixeria 15y ago
What are some of these C++ features that interact in unpredictable ways? Just curious.
- jerf 15y ago
  http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defective.html http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defective.html isn't strictly limited to answering that question, but it touches on it a lot. I know I'm flinging links around a lot here, but, well, this is all well-covered ground.
  - thedigitalengel 15y ago
    Most of the points mentioned in that particular link pertains why both C and C++ are inferior to languages like LISP and Python which have garbage collectors, weak type system and the like. The bitching about bad compile time errors has been mostly fixed in clang. Then only _inconsistency_ (in the correct sense of the term) in C++ I am aware of is the unordered initialization of static objects. So if you have "class A { ... A () { } };" and have a "A foo;" declared somewhere with static linkage, it can be hard to pin down exactly _when_ that constructor will be called. It will be called before control is transferred to main, but you may want even finer control. If you have noticed other inconsistencies I'd love to know.

IgorPartola 15y ago

The "final straw" is easily overcome with unions. Also I do not buy the argument that you do not have to follow coding conventions in C++ or that explicitly freeing memory is a bad thing. Also comparing the number of lines of code to determine the "best" language is childish. By that logic the language with the largest std. lib is the best.

mojuba 15y ago
Aside from obvious type safety arguments, you want to combine a 'long long' and a 'char' into a union, and for example have a byte matrix occupy 8GB of RAM instead of just 1GB? If I were to defend C, I'd rather choose macros combined with plain typeless buffers. The choice between C and C++ in such cases is really a choice between the nightmare of wrong memory operations and total type unsafety on the one hand (C), and the nightmare of ineffective, bloated code on the other (C++). I believe the latter can be taken under control though.

leon_ 15y ago

is this an inflammatory troll submission?

tree_of_item 15y ago
No, I just see it taken for granted in most places that C++ was a mistake. The "general wisdom" is that C++ is too complicated for its own good and shouldn't be used for anything big (the C++ FQA is frequently cited). An article advocating the opposite position is nice.

tszming 15y ago

If the author changed the title to "Why C++ is vastly superior to C for application programming", than i would agree for the examples he given in the article.

yannickt 15y ago
I agree with you, however most posts I have seen bashing C++ for its complexity do it from the perspective of the systems programmer as well. So it is nice to see someone showing how C++ can be superior.

AshleysBrain 15y ago

Apart from "use the right tool for the job", I always did wonder how C programmers cope without the STL containers: std::vector, std::list, std::set, std::map etc. Sometimes I need to map a string to a list of numbers. std::map<std::string, std::vector<int> >. Done. All memory allocation taken care of for you as well - nothing to leak. In C, how do you get by? You either have to reinvent a red-black tree each time you want that, or use some kind of type-unsafe macro horror, or just not use that data structure. That seems to be a significant point of the article as well. Any C programmers care to enlighten me on this? Nowadays I couldn't code for long in C without thinking "screw this, I want a vector" and going back to C++.

edderly 15y ago
Fair point, but in systems programming where C is used a lot, the 'system' often/usually has the abstract data types you need, or you're in a lower level enough environment that you want your own custom/hardware specific solution. Crude example: http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ/LinkedLists http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ/LinkedLists
Freaky 15y ago
If you don't like macros (which are used quite a lot for this sort of thing - e.g. http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/sys/queue.h http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/sys/queue.h), void pointers and function pointers go a long way too. Nobody's writing red-black trees from scratch for every project, really.

jmspring 15y ago

I've found that whenever someone argues "X is best", they've only worked in projects where "X" makes sense for them. At a start up a couple of years ago, we had an intern that was all hot and bothered over C++ and boost. After he expanded is horizons to web development and investigating scripting languages, he really enjoyed Ruby. It depends on what you are working on, the libraries and tools available, and your comfort with what languages fit that paradigm. I use C++ and Java on a regular basis now, but prefer C for systems programming, and Python for general web/scripting stuff. Since we need to have a nit with C++ for this thread, can someone explain to me how debugging in C++ while using templates is superior?

eropple 15y ago
The answer to your question is "use Visual Studio." ;-) Or, at least, use clang. The gcc stack is pretty poor at dealing with templates, and its debugger is pretty baroque.
theoj 15y ago
+1 Use the right tool for the right job is the proper approach. Right tool depends on your project requirements.

16s 15y ago

C++ gets a bad wrap from people who have never seriously used it. I'm glad to see someone slapping back. It's a fine language that is very useful and will be for decades to come.

uriel 15y ago

I thought everyone knew this, because it creates more and better jobs[1]! [1] http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/I_did_it_for_you_all http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/I_did_it_for_you_all

steve-howard 15y ago
You no doubt know that that "interview" was a complete fabrication. Please don't present it as fact.

mitchi 15y ago

"A few of lines of C++ code would need hundreds, if not even thousands of lines of C code, but an experienced C programmer is used to that." Yea right. This guy is full of it. This article is very biased...

eropple 15y ago
Of course it's biased. It's also not really wrong on a lot of counts. You really can write more expressive, terser code in C++, that sacrifices no readability and only a very tiny bit of performance (on non-embedded platforms). Seriously--RAII alone saves approximately twelve hojillion lines of code (and saves you from hideous factory-pattern libraries spread hither and yon, which is also a plus). The flip side of that coin is that if you don't know what you're doing, you can blow off your leg, your friend's leg, and the legs of everyone in a twenty-foot radius.

jpr 15y ago

My reason why C++ is vastly inferior to C: It's just too goddamn easy to make a mess in C++ without noticing it. In C, if you make a mess, you will more likely notice it before it's unmanageable.

thedigitalengel 15y ago
Can you be more specific? I have a counter example (assuming I've understood you): /* C / int foo () { FILE x = fopen("bar"); return 0; } /* C++ */ int foo () { ifstream in("bar"); return 0; }
- jpr 15y ago
  C assumes that you know the contracts that calling a function implies. fopen()'s contract requires you to close the file after you are done with it.

jergosh 15y ago

This post boils down to "Take C, add support for OO, a crapload of new syntax, standard library that 10x as large and ta-da! you can find problems which have simpler solutions than in C." There's a great post by Linus Torvalds about C vs. C++ in the kernel. Some excerpts: "My point being, that C++ adds absolutely nothing interesting." "C++ is a mess. There's no design. It's just "add crud on top of C". And the crud isn't even meaningful, much less does it have a design. It's totally and utterly random. It started out random, now it's randomness that gets added to by a committee." Whole thing: http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110577&threadid=110549&roomid=2 http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&...

tree_of_item 15y ago
The author of the OP has a pretty well written rebuttal to everything Torvalds has said about C++: http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseToTorvalds.html http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseToTorvalds.html
- IvarTJ 15y ago
  That article is not very informative, and spends a lot of time characterizing Linus as someone with the “C-hacker syndrome.”
  - yannickt 15y ago
    I find the article to be vastly more informative than most of Linus' posts about C++, which usually read more like rants than well informed criticism. He does not characterize Linus as a "C-hacker", Linus does that himself by posting an opinion about C++ that completely lacks substance.
- huhtenberg 15y ago
  I looked at the rebuttal and I couldn't make past the part where he argues against this point - It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it ... Even if the choice of C were to do nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out, that in itself would be a huge reason to use C* As someone who had substantial exposure to interviewing and hiring C and C++ programmers to add to a team of 250 it was bloody obvious that a lot of pure C++ programmers are the pompous know-it-alls who think they know C++, while C people are those with far more realistic self-assessment who actually do know the language. Linus got it absolutely right.

codegagan 15y ago

Its Object oriented features !

danieldk 15y ago

As usual, use the right tool for the job. Personally, I use C++ mostly, for different reasons: - There are some very good cross-platform toolkits available for C++ (such as Qt). - There is no C99 support in Visual Studio. At the same time, C++-98 works across all major compilers these days. - STL containers. However, C++ just is the best choice for the projects I am currently working on. For other projects, with fewer dependencies and no portability requirements beyond Unixy environments I prefer C. Nearly any language can be superior, depending on the project. The linked article attempts to show that C++ is superior based on some specific situations where this may indeed be the case.

atlei 15y ago

I don't think any language is vastly superior to any other in every case. You can say that C++ is vastly more powerful (and flexible) than C, but for low-level/embedded/kernel etc development, many would argue that C is the superior language. Many people would also argue that C++ is maybe too powerful and complex; you can do everything with it, but sometimes this makes it hard to decide how to do "anything" (procedural ? Object-oriented ? Using templates ?). Lots of people (myself included) find it so complex that they only use a subset of it - "the good parts". However, agreeing which parts to use is often impossible. I've written about about what I consider "the good parts" here: - http://www.ppcsoft.com/blog/c-star.asp http://www.ppcsoft.com/blog/c-star.asp

ctz 15y ago

Counterpoint to the C++ fragment in "Error handling" section: void foo() { Matrix *a = new Matrix(1000, 1000); Matrix *b = new Matrix(1000, 1000); delete b; delete a; } Pretending exceptions solve error handling gets you a big fat zero. Look at boost: despite being written by C++ experts and held up as an excellent library (which it is!), it contains exception-unsafe portions. Why? Total exception safety is just as hard as the original error handling problem.

simoncion 15y ago
Counterpoint to your counterpoint: void foo() { typedef std::auto_ptr<Matrix> matAP; matAP a(new Matrix(1000, 1000)); matAP b(new Matrix(1000, 1000)); }
anonymous246 15y ago
I don't think it's because the Boost guys thought it "too hard". Having seen/used some of those libraries, I'm 100% sure they can handle the alleged "hardness". C++ in general values performance over safety almost everywhere (just like C). That's probably why they made certain parts exception-unsafe.

mklencke 15y ago

The RAII benefits are definitely there and STL containers are pretty awesome, but you can still create generic containers in C by using void pointers. For example, a simple vector API: typedef struct { void *elements; int elem_size; int n; } Vector; Vector *vector_new(int elem_size); void vector_free(Vector *v); void vector_push(Vector *v, void *elem); void vector_pop(Vector *v); int vector_size(Vector *v); void *vector_at(Vector *v, int i); etc. This is off the top of my head, but you get the idea. You can basically put anything you want in there as long as you say how large the elements are upon initialization. There is a good book on generic C programming: http://sites.google.com/site/cinterfacesimplementations/ http://sites.google.com/site/cinterfacesimplementations/

rbonvall 15y ago
The problem with using void* pointers is that every access to an element costs one extra dereference operation. By using C++ templates, the compiler can create object code specifically compiled for each data type, without the need for pointers. (On the other hand, this can make C++ binaries much larger).
- mklencke 15y ago
  In this case, I'm not storing void pointers in the data structure, but I'm using the void pointer as a direct address into "elements". The memory layout is just a sequence of items of length elem_size. vector_push copies the item into that memory (and doubles the size of "elements" with realloc when necessary).
  - anonymous246 15y ago
    So you have a memcpy() call in vector_push? I wonder if that's less efficient than a straight-up assignment for small objects such as integers. The C++ equivalent can be further optimized during instruction generation by keeping things in the CPU registers as long as possible. In your C case, the int has to be written to memory before memcpy can load it into its buffer.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

starpilot 15y ago

Novice question: Why is C++ used for the vast majority of video games today? Why is it used for most commercial CFD codes? (A lot of codes in academia still use tons of legacy fortran though.)

sehugg 15y ago
I think this post sums it up pretty nicely: http://www.gamearchitect.net/Articles/WhyC++.html http://www.gamearchitect.net/Articles/WhyC++.html Personally I think the advantages boil down to syntax and type-safety. For example, vector math is much more succinct and can be made type-safe. Constructors/destructors also can be handy for enforcing resource allocation.
malkia 15y ago
yes, but you are not allowed to use exceptions, and the latter being major feature of the language puts one in strange situation.

tzs 15y ago

The problem with C++ is that the language is too damn big. This results in most programmers only learning really well a subset of the language. Unfortunately, different programmers end up with different subsets. I'd like to see some de facto standardization on subsets. For instance, there could be Basic C++. When programming Basic C++ you use it like C with the following C++ features added: constructors, destructors, references, std::string, and maybe the STL collections. Simple Object C++ could be Basic C++ plus single inheritance. The on top of that, we could add things like multiple inheritance, operator overloading, templates, and so on.

thedigitalengel 15y ago
Most projects have a set of coding guidelines. I don't see why it cannot specify things like: "Don't use operator overloading!". Google does, for one thing. Without discipline both C and C++ will blow you up completely. With some discipline both the languages are manageable, and C++ more so; which is what the OP points out.
- peterbotond 15y ago
  that's exactly right and correct. any language can be screwed up without descipline, and understanding of the solution trying to be implemented. me for example, put comments in code that what direction of design, execution path is taken to correct less efficient idioms. so, at a later time, new code can be added with some direction. this prevents the urge to copy and paste by the new guy. coding guidelines are also to include programming idioms, primitives, to use and build the solution around it. for c++, c and others i wrote many of guidelines, and seeing the benefit later i can say the above.

rwmj 15y ago

This article should be "why C++ is vastly superior to C for multiplying and adding 3 matrices if you're not a very good C programmer".

tree_of_item 15y ago
So how would a very good C programmer implement this example? I don't think you can No True Scotsman your way around RAII and templates.

malkia 15y ago

highly opinionanted article. C++ breaks at places, where the compiler is instructed to not optimize (debug builds), and say operator overloading have been used for simple types, which creates function calls, rather than inlining it, while "C" approach (functon calls) would've worked not so slow. Talking from real experience, after coworker rolled heavy templated C++ math library for all consoles and PC, that worked very good in release, but debug builds crawled to 10 times slower. The problem is that this library forced everyone to use it's types, interfaces, etc. - so the effect was spreading everywhere. Instead you should only do such things isolated, and provie "c" interface (for example zeromq does that). Also do not propagate exceptions to client, especially if you are some middleware not used for the core of the things (for example social service api, advertisement api, or anything small used just as service). Better do exceptions internally, and provide error codes or callbacks for client. Exceptions do not work on certain very popular gaming devices for examlple, and the user of your library might want to avoid them for other reasons so do your best C++ in secret, if you want, provide us C interface

KonradKlause 15y ago

The Dark Side of C++ http://www.fefe.de/c++/c%2b%2b-talk.pdf http://www.fefe.de/c++/c%2b%2b-talk.pdf

mitchi 15y ago
a very good read.

edanm 15y ago

Interesting article. One major problem - it doesn't seem like the OP has ever actually used C for real world code. I say this as someone with a few years of experience with C (and a few years of C++). None of the examples he showed of C code look like they were actually written by a C programmer. A lot of use of "goto"'s, for one thing. It looks like he tried reimplementing C++ in C. Actually, that's exactly what he decided must be done: " If the C version wishes to match the C++ version in speed and memory usage, it will have to basically simulate the C++ implementation using a struct and functions which handle objects of that struct type (including things like initialization and destruction)." So obviously, if you set out from the start with the assumption that to use a language, you have to reimplement another language in it, then of course you'll come to the conclusion that you should just use the other language. But that's not a conclusion that C programmers would be comfortable with. By the way, as just one nitpick, I'd probably implement that Matrix with "void *" pointers, letting me substitute any struct I want in there later. Just my way of solving the "impossible to solve" problem he presents at the end.

blacksmythe 15y ago

Many people believe that C++ has useful features that improve the ability of the average programmer to write application programs. One problem is that different companies use different subsets. (The question of which language the Linux kernel should be written in is of limited interest.) We could name a restricted subset of C++ as C+-. Many high quality and well-tested development tools for C+- already exist (the C++ tools). Now the problem remains of standardizing C+-. The most logical C+- variant to standardize on is the C++ subset used by the largest group of people, presumably the version defined by Google: http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml#Inheritance http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.x... Now the question becomes is it easier for average programmers to build application programs using C or C+-? Using C+- or C? These are perhaps more useful questions than the long running C vs C++ debate.