Rick,
I remember when I first started to learn C++, I had a lot
of trouble. I eventually gave up and learned C instead. C
is a nice language in that things are usually much easier
to understand than in C++. With this in mind, it may suite
you in the long run to not spend too much time learning C
(if you already know C than ignore this) and immediately
start learning C++. Myabe I am wrong, but when you start
learning C++ you will see why C++ is better in some (if not
all?) respects. Another important note about C++ to
remember is that although C++ has a lot of features you do
not have to use them all.
However, Rick, you should also consider what kind of
programming you want to do. If your interested in kernel
level programming or just like be a unix traditionalist
than C may be best. Even your platform is important when
considering this. For example, although, many people
program in C++ on Linux there are few purely C++ libraries.
To me, it would seem that C++ is getting the short end of
the stick on Linux... maybe I'm wrong.
If your interested in one distinct difference with C and
C++ that you would like to explore then take a look at
"generics" in C and generics in C++. What you will find
will illustrate one reason why people like C++.
Maybe I'm full of sh**, but this is just what I think.
--- Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 1/22/2007 01:34 AM, you wrote:
> >At 20:40 2007-01-21, Rick wrote:
> >>At 1/21/2007 05:19 PM, you wrote:
> >>>At 12:27 2007-01-21, navid yaghoobi wrote:
> >>>>Hi
> >>>>if you want to work with linux its beter to work woth
> C
> >>>
> >>>There is NO excuse for writing ANYTHING in C these
> days.......none!
> >>
> >>I disagree. While it is good to form an opinion and
> have a favorite
> >>language, that does not mean other languages are
> useless.
> >
> >C is, and has been useless ever since C++ became
> standardized. and
> >I'll say it again, There is NO point in writing
> anything in C
> >these days. C++ is simply a better language, period
> >
> >>C is, in fact, a very good language. It is often used
> for writing
> >>device drivers, for example. Sure, one could also use
> C++, but C is
> >>a perfectly acceptable choice.
> >>
> >>Victor. Have you opinion but don't degrade the choices
> of others.
> >>It isn't necessary.
> >
> >I wasn't degrading anyone, and it's NOT an opinion, it's
> fact
>
> No, Victor, your statement is NOT fact. Saying "There is
> NO excuse
> for writing ANYTHING in C these days.......none!" is
> simply not true.
> Sure, C++ may be a superior language to C but, if one
> does not know
> how to program C++ yet they do know how to write code in
> C, then C is
> a perfectly acceptable choice.
> This forum is supposed to help those of us who do not
> currently know
> C++ and would like to learn. Statements/attitudes like
> yours make
> that process more difficult.
>
>
>
> >>P.S. The program you wrote for me fails. I asked for a
> fix, but
> >>received no reply.
> >
> >then read your damned mail..... David gave the fix, and
> I replied to him
> >btw, sending a stupid .jpg file isn't the normal way to
> indicate a
> >failure.... there was NO text in the message, and I
> usually trash
> >EMails with no text and attached "pictures"
>
> Victor,
>
> Since you seem to be fixated on details, this is a
> message board, not
> a mail system. Sure, I read David's comments on your code
> and your
> reply to him. But the message was not directed to me and
> it was not
> obvious that the <exception> -> <stdexcept> issue was
> supposed to be
> the "fix" to your code I could not get to work. That was
> a separate
> exchange between you and David. And, BTW, I made that
> change. It now
> compiles without error, but it does not run. Selecting
> "Run" (or
> double-clicking the program ICON) does NOTHING. It does
> not even
> momentarily pop up a DOS command box. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
>
> Also, I put the JPG there because "a picture is worth a
> thousand
> words" and it showed exactly what the errors were. I'm
> sorry if
> that's not standard practice here. Calling it "stupid"
> has no positive benefit.
> And there WAS text in that message. Quite a bit of text
> which you
> ignored. I cut it from the previous message and I'll
> paste it here.
> Maybe you can comment on it now?
>
> Keep in mind, please, that I have extensive experience
> with C but
> none in C++. I'm on this board to, hopefully, learn the
> workings of
> C++. This board (and others) are meant to help, not
> degrade, others.
> It seems many of your posts DO ridicule people who seem
> "inferior" to
> you. And, when it comes to C++ coding I'm sure we are. If
> you want to
> be a hotshot, fine. But why not use your knowledge to
> help others
> rather than tell them how stupid they are? That's why we
> are here. To
> learn from those who know.
>
> I want to learn. I don't think I post stupid questions. I
> never ask
> for someone to write my code.
>
> Here are my comments from the prior post (sans the JPG).
> Comment
> nicely, if you will, please. I honestly would like to
> learn. I think
> you have the knowledge to help.
>
> "Errr, Thanks, I think. It's no wonder I stick with C and
> not C++. I
> thought C++ was supposed to make things easier! But there
> are WAY too
> many things hidden here. [It's frustrating for a
> beginner.] Some examples:
>
> for_each(argv+1, argv+argc, score_word);
> How do I know what score_word will be given as arguments?
> What if
> score_word took more than a single argument? How would
> the for_each
> function know? What would it pass? (Is for_each an
> internal, standard class?)
>
> catch (not_a_letter& e)
> {
> /// output whatever error message
> decided at the
> point the error was found
> cout << e.what() << '\n';
> }
> Again. WHAT!? not_a_letter is defined as a structure. The
> "catch"
> uses it with an argument e? and then cout uses the
> argument e. How am
> I supposed to know that the argument e has a method
> what()? This is
> VERY confusing!
>
> Until I have the time to learn all the hidden classes,
> etc. I'll stick to C.
>
> Thanks for the example, though.
>
> DevC++ shows the folllowing errors. It even complains
> about struct
> not_a_letter not having a member what, as I questioned...
> "
>
>
> >>~Rick
> >>
> >>
> >>>> not C++ or vc
> >>>
> >>>as replied to bevore, vc is NOT a language
> >>>
> >>>>but java is verey powerfull it's beter to study java
> it's a very
> >>>>goof language especially J2EE
> >>>>
> >>>>ed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:44:06 -0800 (PST)
> >>>>Bilal Jan
> <<mailto:just4u_cpp%40yahoo.com>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>>> > hello everyone
> >>>> > i am a student of comp engg and i have to choose
> one language JAVA
> >>>> > or VC++ in my next term elective cource. i have
> heard that VC++ is
> >>>> > more verstile and is also in now a dayz where as
> Java has not much
> >>>> > applications area. can u plz guide me wh language
> is better . regards
> >>>> > ahmed bilal
> >>>>perl
> >>>>--
> >>>>Regards, Ed ::
>
<http://www.openbsdhacker.com>http://www.openbsdhacker.com
> >>>>just another linux hacker
> >>>>Chuck Norris is always loaded. Chuck Norris does not
> point himself at
> >>>>anything he is not willing to destroy.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
>>>><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/>Never
>
>
=== message truncated ===
_________________
Joseph A. Marrero
http://www.l33tprogrammer.com/
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
