At 1/24/2007 04:33 PM, you wrote:
>Rick wrote:
> > At 1/23/2007 12:27 AM, you wrote:
> >> One has to question WHY they know C and not C++. Absent thousands of
> >> lines of code in C to be maintained, there is no excuse for using the
> >> language.
> >
> > And why does one have to wonder why "they" know C and not C++? How about
> > "they" learned C long before C++ ever existed?
> > And what about the millions of lines of C code that currently exist? One
> > cannot simply throw it all away and re-write it overnight. It's out
> > there, in volume, and it's doing the job it was meant to do.
> >
> > Perhaps your over-zealous acceptance of C++ over C is because you never
> > learned C. Good for you. Some of us aren't that fortunate.
> > And, perhaps you DID learn C first and then converted to C++. Also good
> > for you.
> > I am not a programmer/software developer by trade. I program because I
> > enjoy it. I started years ago programming in ALGOL then BASIC, COBOL,
> > Pascal, PL/1, and other languages. Eventually I learned C and liked it
> > far better than the previous languages I had worked with. I still like
> > it. It does what I need it to.
> >
> > Agreed, I SHOULD learn C++. And I would like to do that, but I simply
> > don't have the time to devote to that effort full time. So I spend time
> > here reading the messages hoping to pick up some tips and ideas about
> > the C++ language. I've gone back to some of my old C code and tried to
> > re-write it in C++. But it's a slow effort given the time I have to
> > devote to it.
>
>I snipped a lot of this discussion. Seems to be wandering
>off-topic'ish/flame'ish.
Yes, I agree. Victor and I have exchanged email off-list. I told him
I'm declaring a truce and we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
>Rick, you could do what I did. If you have an existing C base, many of
>C++'s _concepts_ are adaptable to C. For instance, classes. In C++,
>you do:
>
>class MyClass
>{
>public:
> MyClass();
> ~MyClass();
>
> int SomeFunc();
>
>private:
> int SomeVar;
> char *AnotherVar;
>};
>
>In C, you could translate that to:
>
>struct MyClass
>{
> int SomeVar;
> char *AnotherVar;
>};
>
>struct MyClass *CreateMyClass()
>{
> // Allocate a structure and pre-fill the fields.
>}
>
>int DestroyMyClass(struct MyClass *MainPtr)
>{
> // Deallocate the structure.
>}
>
>int SomeFunc(struct MyClass *MainPtr)
>{
> // Perform some action and return result.
>}
>
>(I know I used C++-style comments. Habit. Sorry.)
>
>You get the idea. I just took a C++ idea and implemented it in C. Yes,
>it results in more code and uses an unprotected struct, but back when I
>started using the above OOP-style concept, C++ compilers weren't exactly
>around. Moving to C++ for me was a natural move once I determined that
>C++ compilers had stabilized sufficiently.
I'll have to read through this again in detail. But, yes, I get the
basic idea.
I'm hoping to have time to read your book (and maybe others) and get
a better handle on C++.
I took a C++ course almost 10 years ago but never used the language
so I've forgotten everything. I really need to start fresh.
The course was taught by Harvey Dietel. I thought it was okay but I
think I've read here in the past that people don't have a high opinion of him.
Regardless, I realize the power of C++. I just need to learn and practice.
~Rick
>--
>Thomas Hruska
>CubicleSoft President
>Ph: 517-803-4197
>
>*NEW* VerifyMyPC 2.0
>Change tracking and management tool.
>Reduce tech. support times from 2 hours to 5 minutes.
>
>Free for personal use, $10 otherwise.
>http://www.CubicleSoft.com/VerifyMyPC/
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a blank message to
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
