faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: Cool
by M on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @14:15
|
> While it's true that C++ provides quite a bit more safety over C, it's still
> as easy to produce insecure code with C++ as much as it is with C.
Do you actually read what you type? You dont make sense.
It is way easier to write (and read!) C++ code than C, while C++ can even be slightly faster than C.
But my point is not that C++ is the best language ever made (even though its pretty good), my point is that you should not use a 30-40 years old technology like C for todays programs. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Cool
by Anonymous on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @15:50
|
Since C is an almost complete subset of C++, most C statements are valid C++ and your niffty C++ code probably uses quite some elements from that subset. The anonymous poster is right in saying that producing insecure C++ code is very easy. Of course you can always compensate this insecurity by using strict conventions, but this is possible in C as well. Bashing some project just because it is developed using a certain language is quite unhelpful to say the least. Remember your trustworthy Linux kernel is C code as well and even the C++ based KDE had security issues in the past. That being said I consider myself a C++ programmer but not the kind of language fascist that you seem to be.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Cool
by nl on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @17:29
|
I cant agree with this. It not the existing features that make C bad (outdated) its the missing ones! You can use better programming strategies that dont exist in C.
And I wouldn't really call the linux kernel trustworthy...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: Cool
by Lars Roland on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @16:08
|
Ahh I love the C vs. C++ fight.
I wonder if any of you people have even looked at the dbus code ?? - I have and it looks well written, so why not just accept that some cool programs is written in C and others in C++ (and Haskell, and Java, and C#, and ....).
As for the 30-40 year old technology, I can tell you that this old stuff powers most of the operating system kernels around the world today (inluding Linux, FreeBSD and big parts of the NT kernel) - but then again you can always try to convince Linus, Alan and the rest of the Linux gang to rewrite it in C++.
Ohh do you really mean that reading C++ is easier than C ?. Given that the grammars/lexical defenitions for C++ is much more complex than C, and most people writing programs in C++ only have marginal understaning of the language.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Cool
by peter neuberger on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @17:43
|
> I wonder if any of you people have even looked at the dbus code ?? - I have and it looks well written, so why not just accept that some cool programs is written in C and others in C++ (and Haskell, and Java, and C#, and ....).
last time I checked there was glib code pasted into it, but that was like a year ago or so. Overall I wasn't impressed.
> Ohh do you really mean that reading C++ is easier than C ?
Sure it is. Every C++ program follows roughly the same rules. On the other hand for every C library that I use you have to learn a new "object emulation model" or some more or less crazy API.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Cool
by koos on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @17:51
|
> C++ is much more complex than C
Yeah, try reading the boost libraries. Even the STL files, in/usr/include/c++/, can be hard to follow. But don't get me wrong, the result is _very_ powerfull both in features as in speed. But indeed KDE's includes are easy to read.
Actually I was quite happy to only have to recompile libfam and Qt/KDE, when upgrading gcc from 3.3 to 3.4. Not to mention the compile time difference. Long live C, and may every library, that I don't have to use, be implemented in C. And which I do use, well mostly it doesn't really matter.
What's really a swamp is building on top of win32, because you don't know what beneath you (and you get sucked away as soon as it becomes too popular).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Cool
by stl on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @18:09
|
I find the stl easier to read than most C libraries(lets say glib). Qt/KDE you can almost read like a book.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Cool
by koos on Friday 24/Sep/2004, @02:17
|
You probably choose the most expensive super market, because the vinegar is much cheaper there then the bordeaux wines from price fighter mega store next door :-)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Cool
by stl on Friday 24/Sep/2004, @15:20
|
No, I chose to drive a car(C++) rather than riding on a horse(C) to work.
But seriously, I know it is hard to compare C libs to C++ libs because there is not very often 2 libraries for the same thing. I chose stl vs glib, because they do roughly the same, I/O, containers, string.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
