| Username |
Post |
| SMSainju |
Posted
on 26-Mar-02 12:07 PM
Need your feedback as to how effective has the info been on C/C++.
would you be able to comment on this?
Thanks.
SMSainju
|
| sangha |
Posted
on 26-Mar-02 12:43 PM
Sainjujee--
You are doing a great job. I glanced at the material and found it quite interesting.My Congratulations to come up with such a bright idea.
I think, though C++ is almost a superset of C yet its intrinsic OOP nature make it entirely different than C. Well you can always use it as C without any problem.
I would appreciate if you introduce material related to C with Structured analysis and then C++ with Object oriented...
It will give a chance to reader to see the difference in paradigm and appreciate both of them.
How ever this is my opinion and feel free to discard it.
sangha
|
| klm |
Posted
on 26-Mar-02 01:40 PM
Although it is often overlooked, C++ cannot always be used as C in the sense that C++ compilers do not necessarily compile C files as intended by C programmers; there are some exceptions.
|
| sangha |
Posted
on 26-Mar-02 02:07 PM
you may be right as compilation options are different. However that is more related to idiosyncrasies of compiler not with the language construct.
|
| Makruo |
Posted
on 26-Mar-02 02:51 PM
hi, I wanna write c++ code using cygwin which simulates unix environment in pc. I downloaded cygwin. But I am not sure how to install gdb, gcc compililing tools. Any idea?????
|
| SMSainju |
Posted
on 26-Mar-02 07:15 PM
Thanks for your response.
This is a C class and later on we will move to C++. I am focusing on intro to C in the first section. The second section will be the data structure. Then we will cover some C++ concepts.
So all the materials I have covered so far is for ANSI C.
Thanks again for your feedback.
SMSainju
|
| wannabeguru |
Posted
on 26-Mar-02 08:22 PM
Could not help noticing this thread so I have jumped in out of the way..
Compiler idiocracies... hmmm...
Don't take my word but I thought Bjarne Stroustroup (excuse my spellings if incorrect) himself wrote that there are minute aspects of C that C++ should interpret differently (I read his book some 10 years ago and used Turbo C++ compiler to check out some of his explanations)! I currently don't have his book handy, nor do I have K&R, nor any C or C++ books. Can anyone verify this for me? My compiler readily rejects some C constructs if compiled as a C++ file but accepts it if it is forced to take it as a C file. My understanding is it was BS's intention not to deviate from constructions of C as far as possible, agreed; but he found some loopholes and so had to deviate from C!
If a c++ compiler does not compile a C file, then there is a way out: turn on C some options; but this procedure does not verify C++ is 100% backward compatible to C in the true sense of the word (the switch effectively turns off the C++ compiler). Otherwise turn on a couple of switches and the c++ compiler might compile Java source code (the switch was to invoke Java compiler), and of course C++ is not Java compatible! Also, technically, it is always possible to write a C program in such a way that it will be 100% compatible with C and C++ all the time as long as BS and KR's defintions are strictly followed (well turn off those idiocratic options)!
|
