Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!purdue!decwrl!megatest!djones
From: djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ as a better C (fact or fiction)?
Message-ID: <509@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Date: 5 May 88 03:25:14 GMT
References: <6590041@hplsla.HP.COM>
Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca
Lines: 35

in article <6590041@hplsla.HP.COM>, bobk@hplsla.HP.COM (                Bob Kunz) says:
> 
> 
> I recently attended the AT&T training on C++ and an interesting question
> came up in one of the discussions about the use of C++ "simply as a 
> better C".  The opinions ranged from only use C++ if you intend to use
> all it's features to it's fine to use as a better C because it has type
> checking and one can choose to use the other features if one wants to.
> 
> What's the opinion of the net?  Have people used C++ as a better C and
> been successful?  Or do people only consider C++ when speaking object
> oriented in the same breath?  Does the problem need to be solvable by
> object oriented techniques before C++ is considered?  Why did you not
> use C?  And would an ANSI-C compiler have made a difference?
> 



Since I do my C programming in the object-style, for me there
is no conflict.  C++ makes it easier to program the way I would anyhow.
Once you've heard of object-programming and understood it, why would
you want to program any other way? :-)

But here's another "better C" reason:  You can redefine
operators.  So if somebody gets "programmed into a corner" with
direct accesses to a data-structure all over the place (no doubt in
old code written by somebody who panicked an ran long ago) you can fight
your way out.






                  --  Dave J.