/me if anyone cares

[MyndFyre]

C++ is a superset of C.  If you know C++, then you should already know all that you have to know about C.  How you can know C++ without knowing C is beyond me.

Not true at all...

Joker and Hitmen seem to agree with me, Mephisto.  Note that I said the C++ is a superset of C -- which means that there are components in C++ that are not in C, but all components in C are in C++.

Care to defend your position?

[j0k3r]

C++ is a superset of C.  If you know C++, then you should already know all that you have to know about C.  How you can know C++ without knowing C is beyond me.

Not true at all...

Joker and Hitmen seem to agree with me, Mephisto.  Note that I said the C++ is a superset of C -- which means that there are components in C++ that are not in C, but all components in C are in C++.

Care to defend your position?

Whoa, I don't know enough to say something like that, I just said (or tried to say) they seemed similar and knowledge of one lends itself to the other.

[MyndFyre]

C++ is a superset of C.  If you know C++, then you should already know all that you have to know about C.  How you can know C++ without knowing C is beyond me.

Not true at all...

Joker and Hitmen seem to agree with me, Mephisto.  Note that I said the C++ is a superset of C -- which means that there are components in C++ that are not in C, but all components in C are in C++.

Care to defend your position?

Whoa, I don't know enough to say something like that, I just said (or tried to say) they seemed similar and knowledge of one lends itself to the other.

* Myndfyre nudges j0k3r

* Myndfyre whispers c'mon back me up!

[j0k3r]

Hah Myndfyre, ok. He seems to be right in that most (if not all) of the components in C are in C++.

Maybe not all you have to know though, for instance what to do in a certain case where you'd use a C++-only bit of code for a C project.

[Mephisto]

There are several libraries and functions native to C that are not part of C++.  Additionally, things such as structures and unions are not part of C++, and the C and C++ paradigms are different.  I learned C++, and the concepts of them, and then went back to C and learned some useful things that C++ didn't teach/have.  So it's not necessarily the best thing to say that if you learn C++ you know all that you need to know about C.

[MyndFyre]

Additionally, things such as structures and unions are not part of C++, and the C and C++ paradigms are different.

Really?  You want to re-think that?  I wonder how IP addresses for IPv4 and IPv6 are stored in the MFC classes... perhaps unions...

[Mephisto]

Additionally, things such as structures and unions are not part of C++, and the C and C++ paradigms are different.

Really?  You want to re-think that?  I wonder how IP addresses for IPv4 and IPv6 are stored in the MFC classes... perhaps unions...

Hmm...I guess I was mistaken after doing some research on the subject.  I was never taught unions in C++ and when I learned unions it was in C.  Thanks Myndfyre, I learned something new.    Though I've never had need to use a union in C++, let alone C before when I had structures and classes avaliable to me.

[hismajesty]

Maybe it's time for some real hosting then?

www.liquidweb.com has some good hosting...

Why are you getting so defensive (another post)? I'm assuming this is your host/possibly your company? Anyway, the site took well over 10 seconds to load so that would give me the impression that they're not that fast, regardless of if it was caused by me/my isp/etc. Not that it matters since I have a host that I'm happy with.

[iago]

I haven't been paying any attention to this forum, but I thought I'd post here: I learned C++ before I learned C, and they were quite different.

First of all, C uses printf() and C++ uses cout, in general.  If you're learning printf(), you're learning C, not C++.

Also, you don't need pointers in c++ - I did a course in it and we never touched pointers, only references parameters.

C++ programmers try this:
for(int i = 0.....
C programmers don't:
int i;
...
for(i = 0....

C++ programmers do:
struct a
{
.....}
C programmers:
typedef struct {
.....} a;


I know you CAN do C stuff in C++, but in general you don't.  So learning C IS a different experience.



And back to the original topic - my browser hates something about your website, so it won't load :/

[MyndFyre]

I haven't been paying any attention to this forum, but I thought I'd post here: I learned C++ before I learned C, and they were quite different.

First of all, C uses printf() and C++ uses cout, in general.  If you're learning printf(), you're learning C, not C++.

Also, you don't need pointers in c++ - I did a course in it and we never touched pointers, only references parameters.

C++ programmers try this:
for(int i = 0.....
C programmers don't:
int i;
...
for(i = 0....

C++ programmers do:
struct a
{
.....}
C programmers:
typedef struct {
.....} a;

I know you CAN do C stuff in C++, but in general you don't.  So learning C IS a different experience.

And back to the original topic - my browser hates something about your website, so it won't load :/

The differences in struct declaration between C and C++ are a result of the OOP-ability of C++, although you can indeed declare a C++ structure the way you do in C.

In my C for Dummies book, pointers were covered in chapter 5, well before references.  I'm not sure why you wouldn't use them, :\

As far as the int situation goes, the additional reason that C++ programmers can go:

Code Select Expand


for (int i = 0; i < strLen; i++) {
//...
}

is that as part of the additions to C in C++, the int declaration in for loops leaves scope, so that you can declare "int i" multiple times through the same scope.  A C++ programmer is still free to say "int i; for (i = 0; ..." though.

[AC_Drkan]

a couple words.

DANG HOLY CRAP

never saw that many posts lol

[Yoni]

is that as part of the additions to C in C++, the int declaration in for loops leaves scope, so that you can declare "int i" multiple times through the same scope.  A C++ programmer is still free to say "int i; for (i = 0; ..." though.

I'm not sure it's a difference between C and C++ or not. What I know is that different compilers implement this differently, and that's annoying for compiler-portability. I don't keep track of what's the standard anymore, I just always declare variables outside the for now.

[Adron]

is that as part of the additions to C in C++, the int declaration in for loops leaves scope, so that you can declare "int i" multiple times through the same scope.  A C++ programmer is still free to say "int i; for (i = 0; ..." though.

I'm not sure it's a difference between C and C++ or not. What I know is that different compilers implement this differently, and that's annoying for compiler-portability. I don't keep track of what's the standard anymore, I just always declare variables outside the for now.

I think the current C++ standard is to limit the scope to the for loop, but that the original C++ didn't.

Also, the biggest difference between C and C++ when it comes to variable declarations is that in C, you may only declare variables at the beginning of a scope. There's probably a better way of saying that since any variable's scope will start where it's declared... Basically though, if you want to declare more variables partway down a function in C, you need to add some { } to create a scope for them.

[AC_Drkan]

I have Pylonhosting now

angelclan.pylonhosting.com

no free domains though

i am about to switch to www.1and1.com