On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 21:12, Gottfried Szing wrote: > Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > > Please, there is no such language as C/C++; there are two languages C > > and C++. C++ and Java have more in common than C and C++ and you don't > > hear of people talking about C++/Java as if they were the same lanugage. > > ok, i was not as accurate as necessary. you are completely right, but i > think for a rough (very rough) classification the term C/C++ is correct. > > i think as long as C is viewed as a subset of the language C++ (or C++ > as an "OO extension of C"), the term is not as wrong as "C++/java". and > learning C first, and then C++ is IMHO the best way. because learning > C++ without understanding the basics (hear C) does not make sense.
Ouch! Thats nearly 180' out from what I'd recommend. C teaches very bad habits for C++ programming. The languages, the idioms, and their best problem domains are quite different. C++ is /not/ C with OO added, nor is C a subset of C++. There are valid C constructions that are not valid C++ (counteracting the subset concept). And C++ alters fundamental C rules : some operator precedence, behaviour of enums, memory layout of types. Would I be right in assuming that you've programmed one of C/C++ extensively, but not the other? (Or neither extensively)? Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
