C的继承者，而不是C ++？ [英] Successor to C, not C++?
问题描述
是否有人在C的继任者工作
将面向对象但不会是C ++？
我想避免出现的问题
模板（似乎吸引了一些人）
，这对于
嵌入式平台使用是可以接受的。理想情况下，它将具有
异常处理。我问这个是因为我认为，
和我几乎所有人谈论过这个问题
同意，C ++已经走错了路径错误的
路径有很多方法。请注意，我不是将这个转换为C ++ NG，因为
我真的在寻求一个深思熟虑，知识渊博的回复而不是b $ b一个宗教的烈焰。
谢谢。
PS：请不要说客观C.
< he **** @ yahoo.com>在消息中写道
news：11 ********************* @ o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com ...
< blockquote class =post_quotes>是否有人在C的继任者工作
将面向对象但不会是C ++？
我想避免
模板带来的问题（其中似乎诱惑一些人）
并且可以在
嵌入式平台上使用。
然后你可能想要EC ++。它已经在嵌入式C / C ++编译器上广泛使用了。
（几乎所有这些都使用我们的库，
也可以在我们的网站。）
理想情况下，它会有异常处理。
EC ++是在没有异常处理的情况下编写的，但是
你可以在我们的库中打开它。
我问这个因为我想想，几乎每个与我交谈过的人都赞同，C ++已经在很多方面走错了道路。请注意，我不是把它交给C ++ NG，因为
我真的在寻求一个深思熟虑，知识渊博的回应，而不是一个宗教的火焰战争。
这个话题有点难以避免。仅供参考，C $委员会在20世纪90年代初确实考虑过这样一个生物价值
。然而，最终，他们退出了它们，主要是因为缺乏现金艺术（IMO）。
谢谢。
PS：请不要说客观C。
如果你不想，我不会。
PJ Plauger
Dinkumware，Ltd。
http ：//www.dinkumware.com
文章< 11 ****************** ***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups。 com>，
< he **** @ yahoo.com>写道：是否有人在C的继任者工作
将面向对象，但不会是C ++？
" ;后续"一句话太强了，但是，是的，某人正在研究
替代C。看看：
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/
-
Rouben Rostamian
看来D的理由是
越多越好 ;。在D与其他语言之间给出的比较中，D总是
有更多的功能。我不确定这是一个好主意，一方面它可以导致
在编译器中肯定会膨胀但是
可能也是代码，其次它会增加错误编译器和代码的风险，
，特别是如果编写编译器的人数很少。
Is anyone working on a successor to C that
will be object oriented but will not be C++?
I want to avoid the problems that come with
templates (which seem to tempt some people)
and which would be acceptable for use on
embedded platforms. Ideally, it would have
exception handling. I ask this because I think,
and almost everyone I speak with about it
agrees, that C++ has gone down the wrong
path in a number of ways. Notice, I''m not
crossposting this to the C++ NG, because
I really am seeking a thoughtful, knowledgeable
response and not a religious flamewar.
Thanks.
PS: Please don''t say objective C.
<he****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
Is anyone working on a successor to C that
will be object oriented but will not be C++?
I want to avoid the problems that come with
templates (which seem to tempt some people)
and which would be acceptable for use on
embedded platforms.
Then you probably want EC++. It''s already
widely available on embedded C/C++ compilers.
(Practically all of them use our library,
also available at our web site.)
Ideally, it would have
exception handling.
EC++ was speced without exception handling, but
you can turn it on in our library.
I ask this because I think,
and almost everyone I speak with about it
agrees, that C++ has gone down the wrong
path in a number of ways. Notice, I''m not
crossposting this to the C++ NG, because
I really am seeking a thoughtful, knowledgeable
response and not a religious flamewar.
That''s kinda hard to avoid on this topic. FYI,
the C committee did consider such a creature
in the early 1990s. In the end, however, they
backed off from it, mostly due to a lack of
prior art (IMO).
Thanks.
PS: Please don''t say objective C.
I won''t if you won''t.
P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com
In article <11*********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>,
<he****@yahoo.com> wrote:Is anyone working on a successor to C that
will be object oriented but will not be C++?
"Successor" is too strong a word, but yes, someone is working on
an alternative to C. Look at:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/
--
Rouben Rostamian
It appears that the rationale with D is
"more is better". In the comparison given
between D and other languages, D always
has more features. I am not sure this is a
good idea, for one thing it can lead
to bloat certainly in the compiler but
possibly code too, but secondly it increases
the risk of bugs compiler and code,
especially if the number of people
writing the compiler is small.
这篇关于C的继承者，而不是C ++？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！
