Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 19:59:28 +0200 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Don Dugger <dugger@hotlz.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why is not more FreeBSD software written in C++? Message-ID: <86vet1o5j3.fsf@xps.des.no> In-Reply-To: <444A6B54.1030902@hotlz.com> (Don Dugger's message of "Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:43:48 -0700") References: <44490663.3040506@hotlz.com> <86d5f9pno8.fsf@xps.des.no> <444A6B54.1030902@hotlz.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Don Dugger <dugger@hotlz.com> writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > Don Dugger <dugger@hotlz.com> 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. > I mean the constructs. Casting will not change the functionality or > shouldn't. It does. Casting can be (and often is) used to force or avoid sign promotion in function arguments; for instance, isspace(ch) may produce incorrect results if ch is a char, so a cast to int is required. C allows any expression of pointer type to be assigned to a void *, and allows any expression of type void * to be assigned to any object pointer type. C++ does not. As a result, a typical C program which uses malloc() without casting the result will not compile cleanly with a C++ compiler. A competent C programmer will balk at adding the cast that C++ requires; a competent C++ programmer will correctly point out that a C++ program should not use malloc() anyway. There are other incompatiblities: const has different semantics in C and C++, namespaces aren't quite the same (there is no separation between the typedef namespace and the struct namespace in C++), etc. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86vet1o5j3.fsf>