作为两种语言的程序员...... [英] As a programmer of both languages...
问题描述
关于哪个更好或者更好，C或C ++，似乎有一个空洞的争论，看起来这些讨论之一就是 - />
现在就在这个新闻组中。
我是一个以C ++开始的程序员，现在正在做什么
。在C中的嵌入式系统项目。在我看来，两种语言之间的关系和比较很简单。
C ++的目标是构建在C;采取C />
可以做的所有事情，然后添加一些功能，例如类，操作符
重载和异常。
俯瞰
两种语言的常见子集之间的微小差异（例如转换为void *，字符类型
literals），它是'非常准确地说C ++是C还有一些额外的
功能。
所以在最基本的，你可以说C ++比C更好
它可以完成C可以做的所有事情，并且它还有一些额外的
功能。这一切都很棒，但是这些额外的b / b
功能的代价是增加了编译器的复杂性。我现在正在为PIC 16F684微控制器编写一个程序（比邮票大小少了两美元），并且没有一个滚雪球的机会
我为此找到了一个C ++编译器。为什么？因为没有人打算写一个。我的意思是*有* *你* *看到* C ++
标准的大小？ ：-O不仅如此，而且在为嵌入式系统编程时，
程序的性质并不会产生对象的需求
面向对象节目。我正在编写的当前程序是一个
Connect4游戏，并且还没有一个实例我已经因为面向对象而渴望（b
$ b）即使我在编写PC应用程序时广泛使用类
）。
所以我自己的观点是，虽然C ++是编程
语言今天用于PC，游戏机等，C是
在嵌入式系统方面仍然是王者，而且看起来并不是什么？ >
喜欢很快改变。对于我们这里不太熟练的人来说，
有用于PC的Java和用于微控制器的Basic。
-
$ b $bTomásóhéilidhe
There seems to be constant vacuous debate about which is better or
preferable, C or C++, and it looks like one of these discussions is on-
going right now in this newsgroup.
I''m a programmer who started out in C++, and who''s currently doing
an embedded systems project in C. The relationship and comparison
between the two languages is very simple in my opinion.
The objective of C++ was to build upon C; to take everything that C
can do, and then add a few more features, such as classes, operator
overloading, and exceptions.
Overlooking the small differences between the common subset of the
two languages (e.g. converting from void*, the type of character
literals), it''s quite accurate to say that C++ is C with some more added
features.
So at the most basic, you can say that C++ is better than C in that
it can do everything C can does, and that it has a few more extra
features. That''s great and all, but the price to pay for these extra
features is the increased complexity of the compiler. I''m currently
writing a program for the PIC 16F684 microcontroller (which is less than
the size of a postage stamp), and there wouldn''t be a snowball''s chance
in hell of me finding a C++ compiler for it. Why? Because nobody''s
bothered writing one. I mean *have* *you* *seen* the size of the C++
Standard? :-O Not only that, but when programming for embedded systems,
the nature of the programs doesn''t tend to give rise to a desire for
object-orientated programming. The current program I''m writing is a
Connect4 game, and there hasn''t be one instance yet in which I''ve
yearned for object orientation (even though I use classes extensively
when writing PC applications).
So my own point of view is that while C++ is the programming
language to be used today for PC''s, game consoles and the like, C is
still the king when it comes to embedded systems, and that doesn''t seem
like changing any time soon. And for the less-than-proficient among us,
there''s Java for PC''s, and Basic for micrcontrollers.
--
Tomás ó héilidhe
推荐答案
Tomásóhéilidhe说：
Tomás ó héilidhe said:
>
关于哪个更好或者更好，C或C ++，似乎有一个空洞的争论，看起来这些讨论之一就在 -
现在就在这个新闻组中。
>
There seems to be constant vacuous debate about which is better or
preferable, C or C++, and it looks like one of these discussions is on-
going right now in this newsgroup.
这确实是一场空洞的辩论。有些问题在C语言中比在C ++中更适合
，反之亦然，而且有些程序员在C语言上比在C ++语言中更好，而在某些程序员方面则更好。一个人的语言选择部分取决于程序，部分取决于程序员
。
< snip>
-
Richard Heathfield< http://www.cpax.org.uk>
电子邮件：-http：// www。 + rjh @
谷歌用户：< http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
Usenet是一个奇怪的放置" - dmr 1999年7月29日
It is indeed a vacuous debate. Some problems fit better in C than in C++
and vice versa, and some programmers are better at C than at C++ and vice
versa. One''s language choice depends partly on the program and partly on
the programmer.
<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
" Tom ???????????????????????? ??????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? "写道：
"Tom?????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? " wrote:
关于哪个更好或者更好，或者更好，C或C ++，似乎有一个空洞的争论，它看起来像一个这些讨论现在正在这个新闻组中进行 -
。
There seems to be constant vacuous debate about which is better or
preferable, C or C++, and it looks like one of these discussions is on-
going right now in this newsgroup.
不是真的，除了像你这样的一些白痴试图重启这样的b $ b愚蠢的辩论。走开。
[vapid language-war fodder snipped]
Not really, except for a few idiots like you who try to restart such
stupid "debate". Go away.
[vapid language-war fodder snipped]
Tomásóhéilidhe写道：
Tomás ó héilidhe wrote:
关于哪个更好或者更好，C或C ++似乎有一个空洞的争论，看起来这些讨论之一就在上面了 -
现在就在这个新闻组中。
There seems to be constant vacuous debate about which is better or
preferable, C or C++, and it looks like one of these discussions is on-
going right now in this newsgroup.
不，它从来就不是关于C或C ++的讨论，因为大多数人
这里会同意C是更好的选择
我们讨论的是我们是否应该在C中加入一些
修改，如运算符重载和try / catch进入核心C
语言。
我开发了一个C编译器，它以
的方式实现了这些增强功能符合C标准。这在某种程度上冒犯了很多人，这就是说C不需要。那些东西，即使它消失了，最好还是像现在一样离开它。
No, it has never been a discussion about C or C++, since most people
here will agree that C is the better choice
What we are discussing is whether we should incorporate into C some
modifications like operator overloading and try/catch into the core C
language.
I have developed a C compiler that implements those enhancements in a
way that is compatible with the C standard. This offends many people
here that say that C "doesn''t need" those things and even if it
disappears, it is better to leave it like it is now.
我是一个程序员谁开始在C ++中，以及谁正在用C进行嵌入式系统项目。两种语言之间的关系和比较
在我看来非常简单。 br />
C ++的目标是建立在C语言之上;采取C />
可以做的所有事情，然后添加一些功能，例如类，运算符
重载和异常。
I''m a programmer who started out in C++, and who''s currently doing
an embedded systems project in C. The relationship and comparison
between the two languages is very simple in my opinion.
The objective of C++ was to build upon C; to take everything that C
can do, and then add a few more features, such as classes, operator
overloading, and exceptions.
C和C ++之间的区别是C ++的面向对象。 C是
不是面向对象的。
The difference between C and C++ is the object orientation of C++. C is
not object oriented.
忽略
两种语言的公共子集之间的微小差异（例如转换自void *，字符的类型
literals），说C ++是C还有一些更多的
特性是非常准确的。 />
Overlooking the small differences between the common subset of the
two languages (e.g. converting from void*, the type of character
literals), it''s quite accurate to say that C++ is C with some more added
features.
太多添加的功能很简单。我所建议的并不是花费所有
而只是两个，以使C更容易使用。
Too many added features pecisely. What I am proposing is not taking all
of that but just two, to make C an easier language to use.
所以在最基本的，你可以说C ++比C更好
它可以完成C可以做的所有事情，并且它还有一些额外的
功能。这一切都很棒，但是这些额外的b / b
功能的代价是增加了编译器的复杂性。我现在正在为PIC 16F684微控制器编写一个程序（比邮票大小少了两美元），并且没有一个滚雪球的机会
我为此找到了一个C ++编译器。为什么？因为没有人打算写一个。我的意思是*有* *你* *看到* C ++
标准的大小？ ：-O不仅如此，而且在为嵌入式系统编程时，
程序的性质并不会产生对象的需求
面向对象节目。我正在编写的当前程序是一个
Connect4游戏，并且还没有一个实例我已经因为面向对象而渴望（b
$ b）即使我在编写PC应用程序时广泛使用类
）。
So at the most basic, you can say that C++ is better than C in that
it can do everything C can does, and that it has a few more extra
features. That''s great and all, but the price to pay for these extra
features is the increased complexity of the compiler. I''m currently
writing a program for the PIC 16F684 microcontroller (which is less than
the size of a postage stamp), and there wouldn''t be a snowball''s chance
in hell of me finding a C++ compiler for it. Why? Because nobody''s
bothered writing one. I mean *have* *you* *seen* the size of the C++
Standard? :-O Not only that, but when programming for embedded systems,
the nature of the programs doesn''t tend to give rise to a desire for
object-orientated programming. The current program I''m writing is a
Connect4 game, and there hasn''t be one instance yet in which I''ve
yearned for object orientation (even though I use classes extensively
when writing PC applications).
需要一种简单的语言，而不仅仅是PIC 16F684。需要一个简单的
语言，因为它更容易使用！
现在，它不会太简单，因为这样可以使用起来更难比
必要。
A simple language is needed, not ONLY for the PIC 16F684. A simple
language is needed because it is easier to use!
Now, it can''t be TOO simple, because that makes it HARDER to use than
necessary.
所以我自己的观点是，虽然C ++是编程
语言今天用于个人电脑，游戏机等等，在嵌入式系统方面，C仍然是王者，而且看起来并不是很好。
喜欢随时改变。对于我们这里不太熟练的人来说，
有用于PC的Java和用于微控制器的Basic。
So my own point of view is that while C++ is the programming
language to be used today for PC''s, game consoles and the like, C is
still the king when it comes to embedded systems, and that doesn''t seem
like changing any time soon. And for the less-than-proficient among us,
there''s Java for PC''s, and Basic for micrcontrollers.
No. C是通用编程语言。通过一些增强功能和
a更好的库，它可以成为一个很棒的编程语言来完成很多任务。
-
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels / informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
这篇关于作为两种语言的程序员......的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
