From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 22 16:42:23 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F29C16A403 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:42:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9415B43D58 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:42:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1DE2086; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:42:16 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Learn: ham X-Spam-Score: -2.4/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on tim.des.no Received: from xps.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7587B2085; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:42:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by xps.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5101D33C31; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:42:16 +0200 (CEST) From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Don Dugger References: <44490663.3040506@hotlz.com> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:42:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: <44490663.3040506@hotlz.com> (Don Dugger's message of "Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:20:51 -0700") Message-ID: <86d5f9pno8.fsf@xps.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Dan Strick , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why is not more FreeBSD software written in C++? X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:42:23 -0000 Don Dugger writes: > The fact is that all your c code will compile in c++ That is wrong. To name just one example, C++ is much stricter about type casts than C is. > and the c++ compiler may optimize better then the c compiler. I doubt it. It is the exact same compiler with the exact same optimizer and the exact same code generator. The only difference between gcc and g++ is the parser. > C++ and C are languages that are defined by ANSI No they're not. It may surprise you to learn that there is a whole world outside the USA which does not care one whit about ANSI. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no