The fact that C++ Rules can be easily proven by considering two facts:
i) C rules. (1st Standard Programmers' Axiom)
ii) C is contained in C++.
Corollary: C++ Rules Even More than C.
Proof:
We have already proven that C rules, so we now only have to prove that C++ is better than C. That is obvious if we consider two facts:
i) C is contained in C++. That is, you can do in C++ anything you can do in C.
ii) C++ does things that C doesn't do. Example: In C, you can make a program which barks. In C++, you can make a program which barks, or you can make a program which creates a dog, and then make the dog bark.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-20 10:37
This is kind of like saying that if Uma Thurman got fat then she'd be even hotter.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-20 10:53
Yeah, adding stuff isn't just good. C is good because it doesn't have everything.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-20 10:55
Correct me if I'm wrong, but C++ didn't originally have a compiler, it was translated to C.In any case, you can write a C++ compiler in C. Therefore, you can do anything in C that you can in C++.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-20 11:01
C++ can be translated into C. C itself can be translated into simpler languages if needed (for example C--), which can be translated into an even simpler Intermediate Language, which can then be compiled into a target assembly language of your choice.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-20 11:09
>>4
And more. It's a well known fact that C++ is not Touring-Complete.
You have to be a different kind of person to love C++. It is a really interesting example of how a well-meant idea went wrong, because [C++ creator] Bjarne Stroustrup was not trying to do what he has been criticized for. His idea was that first, it might be useful if you did to C what Simula did to Algol, which is basically act as a preprocessor for a different kind of architectural template for programming. It was basically for super-good programmers who are supposed to subclass everything, including the storage allocator, before they did anything serious. The result, of course, was that most programmers did not subclass much. So the people I know who like C++ and have done good things in C++ have been serious iron-men who have basically taken it for what it is, which is a kind of macroprocessor. I grew up with macro systems in the early ’60s, and you have to do a lot of work to make them work for you—otherwise, they kill you.
Name:
Bjarne2009-03-20 15:21
I don't feel that it is right to start off people with a language that they don't have a chance using once they graduate. The Lisp and functional language community failed to make automatic garbage collection and higher-order everything mainstream even though they had the enthusiastic backing of the academic and educational establishment for more than two decades. Clearly, I don't feel that leaving people with a lower-level language like C is optimal either.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-20 15:48
The Lisp and functional language community failed to make automatic garbage collection and higher-order everything mainstream even though they had the enthusiastic backing of the academic and educational establishment for more than two decades.
just look at javascript, c#, and the things that are planned for future versions of java.
and then there are languages like perl, FIOC, and SAF...
what else is there that's "mainstream" besides c and sepples?