Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (2012)

Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (2012) by derefr on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @08:52PM (#9580371)

There was a post here recently, explaining type systems are effectively about restricting you from encoding nonsensical constructions. C is ASM with the ability to encode some nonsensical ASM instruction-sequences removed, etc.

The weird thing about C++—and the reason it didn't just absorb/replace C—is that it gives you the ability to encode strictly more nonsensical things than C does. In that sense, C looks more like the descendant of C++ than the other way around!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (2012) by pjmlp on Thursday May 21, 2015 @02:19AM (#9581218)

> The weird thing about C++—and the reason it didn't just absorb/replace C—is that it gives you the ability to encode strictly more nonsensical things than C does. In that sense, C looks more like the descendant of C++ than the other way around!

Yet the most famous current C compilers are all written in C++.

If it wasn't the rise of open source and its community attachment to C, mainly in GNU and BSD circles, C would have been long replaced except for the embedded space.

[ Parent | on HN ]