X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 05:54:17 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv To: "M. J. Everitt (m DOT j DOT everitt AT iee DOT org) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu" From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu Subject: Re: [geda-user] Re: gschem annoyances (C++) In-Reply-To: <5735ACC6.30105@iee.org> Message-ID: References: <154a7fb8d8c-2a04-17506 AT webprd-a31 DOT mail DOT aol DOT com> <20160513081037 DOT GA23474 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es> <5735ACC6 DOT 30105 AT iee DOT org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Fri, 13 May 2016, M. J. Everitt (m DOT j DOT everitt AT iee DOT org) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: I really don't want to trigger a language flamewar, just want to state that this is not that black and white as "C is obsolete and everyone wants C++ instead". NOTE: I do _not_ suggest anything about gschem vs. languages here, just want to represent a different viewpoint and get some facts straight in the general C vs. C++ question. > The argument of switching to C to c++ barely exists .. the languages are > comparable, with the added benefit of more features in C++ than pure C. > Pretty much up to personal preference. Personal preferences: for me and some others, the C vs. C++ barely exists because we find C a much better choice than C++. One of the reasons is exactly the excess amount of feature stuffed in C++, which we think is not a benefit but a drawback. Side note: people like me also don't believe it's about "system programming" vs. "application development". > I would also suspect there is still active development of the c++ Fact: C gets active development too. The last standard released is C11. There are many C compilers out there that are actively developed, daily. Honestly, I don't really see any sign of the end-of-life of C in the next 10 years. > language, so that provides a good future-proof pathway. Becuse of the above two, and because any C++ programmer will be able to hack C code too, I think it's quiet the opposite: C is at least as future-proof as C++. I don't like long term predictions, but I think C is even more future-proof than C++. C++ is huge and still growing fast which poses an extra risk exactly on the field where it is supposed to beat C. As others already mentioned, new generations of programmers may prefer more modern (and less fuzzy) languages, like rust. My random long term prediction is that C++ is more likely to be replaced by some greatest-latest-more-advanced OOP language; because there's much more interest in creating new language on this field, and because C++ is much closer to collapse under it's on weight (e.g. how many years does it take for a new programmer to truely learn C++, all features included? And what's the release period of new C++ standards?) (C is growing too, unfortunately: C11 introduces a lot of new features compared to C99 and removes only a little amount of obsolete stuff.) Again, I don't want to get into a "my favorite language is better than yours". I don't want to convince anyone about anything. Especially that such changes/aspects wouldn't affect me in any way neither in pcb (because of pcb-rnd) nor in geda/gaf/gschem (because of my rewrite plans). I merely wanted to state there's a minority opinion, when saw the above totally C++-biased mail. Just for the record. Regards, Igor2