On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 05:29:51PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> Didier Kryn said on Tue, 2 Sep 2025 11:31:10 +0200
>
>
> >     The arguments against its adoption may be that the build chain is
> >slightly more complicated than C/C+,
>
> Can we all please stop saying C/C++ and stop implying that C and C++
> are similar? C is a wonderful hardware-independent assembly language
> capable of doing anything allowed by the OS. Its only downside is that
> without extreme carefulness, the compiled C program will have bugs that
> could be catastrophically dangerous.
>
> C++ is a horribly botched attempt to bolt Object Orientation onto C, to
> make C something it was never intended to be.

But there is a C++ subset that is remarkably similar to C.
Given a few macro definitions (mainly to define NULL indifferent
ways) one can even se the C++ compiler to compile C programs.
Why do this? To get slightly better static checking than the
C compiler may provide.

That C++ subset can legitimately be called C/C++.

-- hendrik