4 ms·

> C is a subset of C++ It is not, they diverged since decades now. Still, even if this was the case, the programming styles are so different that there’s noth

> C is a subset of C++ It is not, they diverged since decades now. Still, even if this was the case, the programming styles are so different that there’s nothing to gain considering them as any more similar as any two other languages.

ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
> It is not, they diverged since decades now. AFAIK you always had to cast `void *` in C++ (like the return value of `malloc`).
- yaris 5y ago
  Why on Earth would one use malloc in C++? Instead of using ’new’ if explicit allocation is desired.
  - ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
    We are talking about the question if C is a subset of C++. `new` certainly isn't a part of C, so also not an element of the intersection of C and C++. Idiomatic C code doesn't explicitly cast the return value of malloc foo *bar = malloc(sizeof *bar); C++ did AFAIK never (certainly not with C++98, the question is if it had been allowed sometime before the standardization, but I think it never did) allow this, so you always had to do foo *bar = (foo *)malloc(sizeof *bar); Therefore, C is not a subset of C++. But a (non-empty ;) intersection of C and C++ exists.
  - ByteJockey 5y ago
    If you need to change the buffer size afterwards. My understanding is that most implementations of new call malloc under the hood (this may or may not be outdated at this point, I haven't kept up with C++ implementation) and both of these systems introduce a layer of record keeping, so if you're in an extremely memory constrained environment, you may want to use malloc directly. If you want your code to be noexcept, you need to call malloc and handle the case where it returns null as new can throw (this is UB in theory, but in practice I'm pretty sure everything just aborts) to strip out all the stack-unwinding code. If you want to avoid the constructor call (for whatever reason).
  - futharkshill 5y ago
    > Why on Earth would one use malloc in C++? Instead of using ’new’ if explicit allocation is desired. That was the point of my original comment that C++ and C are not the same language :)

ReleaseCandidat 5y ago

> It is not, they diverged since decades now. AFAIK you always had to cast `void *` in C++ (like the return value of `malloc`).

yaris 5y ago
Why on Earth would one use malloc in C++? Instead of using ’new’ if explicit allocation is desired.
- ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
  We are talking about the question if C is a subset of C++. `new` certainly isn't a part of C, so also not an element of the intersection of C and C++. Idiomatic C code doesn't explicitly cast the return value of malloc foo *bar = malloc(sizeof *bar); C++ did AFAIK never (certainly not with C++98, the question is if it had been allowed sometime before the standardization, but I think it never did) allow this, so you always had to do foo *bar = (foo *)malloc(sizeof *bar); Therefore, C is not a subset of C++. But a (non-empty ;) intersection of C and C++ exists.
- ByteJockey 5y ago
  If you need to change the buffer size afterwards. My understanding is that most implementations of new call malloc under the hood (this may or may not be outdated at this point, I haven't kept up with C++ implementation) and both of these systems introduce a layer of record keeping, so if you're in an extremely memory constrained environment, you may want to use malloc directly. If you want your code to be noexcept, you need to call malloc and handle the case where it returns null as new can throw (this is UB in theory, but in practice I'm pretty sure everything just aborts) to strip out all the stack-unwinding code. If you want to avoid the constructor call (for whatever reason).
- futharkshill 5y ago
  > Why on Earth would one use malloc in C++? Instead of using ’new’ if explicit allocation is desired. That was the point of my original comment that C++ and C are not the same language :)