C?

Templates is one I can think of. Maybe some other small things like virtual functions, inheritance, contstructors, destructors (all of those fall under your class category that you mentioned though), the difference between C comments (/* comment */)and C++ comments (// comment). You don''t have to add .h when you include header files in C++ (or at least you''re not supposed to have to according to the C++ standard). Namespaces are another that come to mind. That''s all I can think of, but I''m sure I''m probably missing something.

C supports const, but not const variables. So you can use it for arguements strcmp( const char *, const char *);

hmmm, thanks I allways thought it didn''t support const variables. Guess I should check these things before I answer a question.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
C doesn''t support ++. I''m not sure about += though.

---

Um....are you sure about that!!!????



Wait, wait, wait....who''s Nambla Fett?

The name ''C++'' is a pun...you know...''C'' incremented.

Wait, wait, wait....who''s Nambla Fett?

quote:

---

...the difference between C comments (/* comment */)and C++ comments (// comment).

---

There is none. C and C++ both (now) supoort /**/ and // style comments.

As of C99, I believe C supports bool and on-the-fly declarations, and has always supported function overloading.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

You can allocate an array of X elements where X is a constant in C++:

const int LEN=182; char myString[LEN];

But you can''t in C. You need to use an actual number (or of course a #define). This may have been changed in the latest revision though.

Also, the syntax for creating struct types is different. C syntax (typedef struct{}name;}works in C++, but C++ syntax (struct name{...} doesn''t work in C.

quote:

---

Original post by TerranFury
But C++ syntax (struct name{...}; ) doesn''t work in C.

---

Yes it does (at least, the demo you give does). It just doesn''t work in the same way you''d expect.



[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]

Tell ''em, Void!

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Oluseyi: after reading your comments about C99 and I did some research. It was interesting to know all the new things C supported that i didn''t know about. I couldn''t however find a list of what the visual C compiler supports of these features. I did find a GCC C99 compliance list and it seemed the GCC compiler has gotten a small amount of C99 working, but is still in the process of adding the new features. Do you know offhand if Visual Studio 7 will have C99 compliance?

Code comment of the week:
bool hack = false; // DO NOT CHANGE THIS EVER

thanks guys!! (...)
where is there a site with all this c99, etc documentation?

quote:

---

Original post by BaShildy
Do you know offhand if Visual Studio 7 will have C99 compliance?

---

I seriously doubt it; Microsoft has made it clear that "standards compliance" is less of a priority for them than ensuring backwards compatibility for all their clients and making sure major libraries (boost, STL for C++, etc) can be compiled without (excessive) change. However, they usually implement standards-compliant behavior as an option.

I would venture that VS.NET wont be C99-compliant out of the box, but after a few service packs (heh) it will. I believe the Microsoft C compiler already supports features such as bool, though...

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

c++ is a superset of c.

quote:

---

Original post by EvilCrap
where is there a site with all this c99, etc documentation?

---

C99 Draft Standard[PDF]
Status of C99 Features in GCC
Status of C99 Features in GCC 3.0


[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

quote:

---

C was designed as an procedural programming language.
C++ was designed as an object oriented programming language,

---

Not really. These are labels that we''ve tacked on to these languages now, but if you read K & R (or look up the origins of C as well as C++) you''ll find that C was written for the purpose of writing operating systems. The very first large-scale project to utilize C was UNIX (ca. 90% C, <10% asm) which is why the two are inextricably linked. C++ evolved out of C (it was originally called "C with classes") to support the "new" (relatively) object-oriented programming paradigm. It is just as possible to write object-oriented code in C as it is in C++; it''s just a little harder.

Interestingly, I''ve heard and read it said that C++ isn''t "true" OO anyway. Whatever, it''s a convenient tool that suits my needs

quote:

---

About the struct thing as far as I know:

---

As stated in certain earlier posts, C now supports the same structure declaration/construction syntax as C++.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

quote:

---

Original post by Oluseyi
The very first large-scale project to utilize C was UNIX (ca. 90% C, <10% asm) which is why the two are inextricably linked.

---

I''ve seen it termed as ''C was written "in" UNIX and then kindly returned the favor''.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
First of all
C was designed as an procedural programming language.
C++ was designed as an object oriented programming language, but of course through the compatibility of C++ to C you can also do traditional procedural programming in C++ or mix both styles.

---

Technically making C++ a multiparadigm language, not merely an object oriented one. One of the main reasons I''ve always liked both C and C++ is that they don''t force you to do anything one way; C++ is simply a continuation of this freedom.

[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]

I don''t feel like quoting whoever posted it in this forum, but that person said that C++ isn''t a ''true'' OO language. Exactly what would a ''true'' OO language be, and why isn''t C++ that?