> My friend mentioned this to her mother...both the mother
> and a coworker thought learning c was funny and a waste
> of time...that c++ was essentially THE language (in that
what is funny is that you really can do better C++ once you know C REALLY
well. C++ is just that - C + 1. You have to know C.
> etc) and that c was a waste and somewhat redundant to
> learning c++ which incorporates much of c but adds more
> capability.
from her POV. From mine - C++ is a waste. If you want OO d oit in Eiffel,
or smalltalk, or Java. forget c++'s hackery.
> Though I indicated that linux and many linux apps were
> written in c, not c++, the general response was "so?".
so that is a good reason to know C.
> As for oo programming, I think that any os can benefit
> from this. OS/2 was oo and it handled things quite nicely
> compared to ANY other os I have used, including linux. I
> actually think that linux would benefit from more oo
> design, but that is another thread.
The kernel IS done in a very OO manner. take a look some time. You don't
have to have C++ to do OO.
> > I have been wondering of late why it is that much of
> > the heart of linux and many linux apps are written
> > in c rather than c++. Why is this? Why not convert
> > everything over...presumeably c++ allows for tighter,
> > more efficient code.
BUZZ. C++ adds a lot of bloat and INefficiency.
C is still the defacto standard for OS's, for fast development, and for
fast code.
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
