[TIB] Re: C vs C++
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[TIB] Re: C vs C++
I also know this, but most libraries distributed from different companies fo rC may not even be the same, such as Kenigan's Learning C may require a different stdio.h compare to a different comapny
In a message dated 11/8/2002 10:58:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, jwzumwalt@neatinfo.com writes:
>
>
>
> I was watching this thread and thought that you should be complimented. I am
> a professional programmer and have gotten into thinking of C as just a light
> version of C++. But you are entirely correct, the two really should not be
> compared to each other!
> Jan Zumwalt
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ti-basic-bounce@lists.ticalc.org
> [mailto:ti-basic-bounce@lists.ticalc.org]On Behalf Of Arthur J. O'Dwyer
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 5:46 PM
> To: ti-basic@lists.ticalc.org
> Subject: [TIB] Re: ti-basic Digest V2 #107
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Gary Sparkes <kb3hag@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > c++ compilers ALWAYS work for c, c++ is backwards compatable and such
> >
> > Nitrocloud@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > C++ always contains C.
> > >
>
> Even though this thread is now way off-topic, I must point out that
> C and C++ are not really compatible in either direction; there is quite
> a lot of C code that is not at all compatible with modern C++, and at
> least in theory a C++ compiler COULD refuse to compile programs that
> use <stdio.h>, do not cast the result of malloc(), contain pathological
> comment constructs, or any number of other things!
> Usually it's a safe bet that your C++ compiler has C support, but
> it's not a given. I suggest reading comp.lang.learn.c-c++
> for more
> (on-topic) information.
>
> -Arthur
Follow-Ups: