As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Are there any aspects to the C++ programming language where the code is known to be slower than the equivalent C language? Obviously this would be excluding the OO features like virtual functions and vtable features etc.
I am wondering whether, when you are programming in a latency-critical area (and you aren't worried about OO features) whether you could stick with basic C++ or would C be better?
Nothing in the C or C++ language standards specifies the speed of any construct (C++ does specify the time complexity of some operations applied to containers, but that's outside the scope of your question). The speed of the code generated for a given construct depends on the compiler used to compile it, and on the system it runs on.
For a given code construct that's valid C and valid C++ with the same semantics, there's no fundamental reason why either should be faster than the other. But it's likely that one will be faster than the other if the developers of the compiler were a little more clever.
That depends on what you mean by "equivalent". If you compare C's stdio.h with C++'s iostream, stdio.h operations are generally faster (quite a bit faster in some situations). But if you are talking about code written in the subset of C++ that also compiles as valid C, the generated machine code will likely be identical.
For one example, C++ lacks the keyword restrict. Used correctly that sometimes allows the compiler to produce faster code.
it's fairly rare in practice to see benefits from restrict, but it happens,
there are plenty of occasions when a C++ or C compiler can deduce (after inlining) that the necessary conditions for restrict apply, and act accordingly, even though the keyword isn't used,
C++ compilers that are also C compilers might provide restrict or __restrict as an extension anyway.
But occasionally (or quite commonly in some domains), restrict is a really good optimization, which I'm told is one of the reasons for still using Fortran. It's certainly one of the reasons for the strict aliasing rules in both C and C++, which give the same optimization opportunity as restrict for a more limited set of circumstances.
Whether you "count" this depends to an extent what you consider "equivalent code". restrict never changes the meaning of a program that uses it validly -- compilers are free to ignore it. So it's not a stretch to describe the program that uses it (for the eyes of the C compiler) and the program that doesn't (for C++) as "equivalent". The version with restrict took more (perhaps only slightly more) programmer effort to create, since the programmer has to be sure that it's correct before using it.
If you mean, is there a program that is valid C and also valid C++, and has the same meaning in both, but implementations are somehow constrained by the C++ standard to run it slower than C implementations, then I'm pretty sure the answer is "no". If you mean, are there any potential performance tweaks available in standard C but not in standard C++, then the answer is "yes".
Whether you can get any benefit from the tweak is another matter, whether you'd have got more benefit for the same amount of effort with a different optimization available in both languages is another, and whether any benefit is big enough to base your choice of language on is still another. It's laughably easy to interoperate between C and C++ code, so if you have any reason at all to prefer C++, then like any optimization that alters your preferred way of coding, switching to C would normally be something you'd do when your profiler tells you your function is too slow, and not before.
Also, I'm trying to convince myself one way or the other whether the potential for exceptions costs performance, assuming that you never use any type that has a non-trivial destructor. I suspect that in practice it probably can (and that this is a contradiction to the "don't pay for what you don't use" principle), if only because otherwise there'd be no point gcc having -fno-exceptions. C++ implementations bring the cost down pretty low (and it's mostly in rodata, not code), but that doesn't mean it's zero. Latency-critical code may or may not also be binary-size-critical code.
Again it might depend what you mean by "equivalent" code -- if I have to compile my so-called "standard C++ program" using a non-standard compiler (such as g++ -fno-exceptions) in order to "prove" that the C++ code is as good as the C, then in some sense the C++ standard is costing me something.
Finally, the C++ runtime itself has a start-up cost, which is not necessarily identical to the C runtime start-up cost for the "same" program. You can generally hack about to reduce the cost of both by removing things you don't strictly need. But that is effort, implementations don't necessarily do it for you completely every time, so it's not strictly true that in C++ you don't pay for what you don't use. That's the general principle, but achieving it is a quality of implementation issue.
Contrary to what many C programmers like to think, one can often write tighter and faster code in C++ all without having to sacrifice a great deal in design.
I can't think of anything in C++ that is slower than its counterpart in C. Virtual functions NOT excluded.
Does Latency critical mean as fast as possible or does it simply mean that everything has to run in predictable time?
If it is the second case, then the only things that don't run in predictable time are new, delete and try/catch. In embedded programming there are directives to avoid such calls. In other cases, especially in C++11 you might notice some things are faster (std::sort is faster than C's sort() ) and some are marginally slower.
But what you gain over C++ is higher abstraction levels and you don't get the C-style bugs (like the typical malloc() without a corresponding free() )
There is no code in C++ whose direct equivalent in C is faster- or, indeed, more maintainable.
If you're using the language that's the intersection of C and C++, then any difference in performance when compiling that code with a C compiler versus a C++ compiler is purely a quality-of-implementation issue; there's no reason one should be faster than the other.
Of course in the real world, if you're using C++ you program using both the additional features that C++ has over the intersection of C and C++ and using different idioms than you would in C. And conversely, if you're using C, you at least use very different idioms from what you would use in C++, and you may also be using additional features of the modern C language which C++ does not have, like, as Steve mentioned, the restrict keyword, or VLAs or pointer-to-VLA types, or compound literals. These features could give major performance benefits in some situations, but in my experience they're not the reasons most people who choose C over C++ do so.
In my mind, the main difference really is idioms. In C, it's idiomatic to make a linked list by putting the next/prev pointers directly in the structure that's being kept in a list, rather than using a separate wrapper object for the list and list nodes. In C, it's idiomatic to iterate directly over the elements of a string as a character array. In C, it's idiomatic to work with objects that exist entirely in automatic storage whenever possible rather than allocating dynamic storage. And so on. These idiomatic differences are the main ways C code tends to be faster and lighter than C++.
Of course if you want, you can use the same idioms in C++, since most of the language constructs needed for most C idioms exist in the intersection of C and C++. And then you can also use the additional features of C++ when appropriate. But you'll be writing non-idiomatic C++ code, and you might receive a lot of criticism from other C++ programmers...
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
As far as I understand all scripting languages and core scientific programs are usually written in C; this renders the implementation messy yet in a way straight to the point.
I understand these people would like to max their performance but is there a real difference between using C strings and C structures to using C++ classes; C++ seems to work the same way, apart from virtual functions, it stores a class function once and every instance of that class calls that one function.
What makes C faster and is it a notable difference in a project such as python or sqlite who have to be the fastest?
C++ is often used for scientific programs. The popularity of C may be waning in that domain. Fortran remains popular as a "low-level" language.
In C++, "you only pay for what you use." So there is nothing that would make it any slower than C. In particular for scientific programs, expression templates make it possible to perform some custom optimization using the template engine to process program semantics.
The reason C is preferred for projects such as Python is that it tends to be less confusing to read, so a large codebase will be more accessible to a larger pool of contributors.
SQLite has a requirement for small executable code size, where C does have a slight edge. Judicious use of C++ still allows use in embedded applications, but it is less popular due to fear that unwanted language features will creep in.
I don't think that the reason is so much related to performance as it is to interoperability. The C++ language is more complex than the C language, but from a performance point of view there shouldn't be a notable difference in either way. Some C++ constructs are faster than the C equivalent (std::sort is faster than qsort) and there are probably good examples of the other way around.
EDIT: On the interoperability side...
Basically, the C++ standard does not define some of the things that might be needed for easy interoperability between binaries created with different compilers/versions. The most notable issue here would be the naming convention for the symbols in the binary. In C, the language defines a single mapping from each symbol in code to the binary symbol name. A function called my_function will create a symbol in the binary called my_function. On the other hand, and due to features like function overloading, the names of C++ functions have to be mangled (translated into different function symbols in the binary, encoding the types of the arguments and return types), and the standard does not define how the mangling is performed. That in turn means that the same function in C++ can be compiled to different symbols depending on the compiler (unless extern "C" is used to force C interoperability for those functions in C++).
At the end of the day, the interface between the scripting language and the native code would have to be a C interface anyway, even if the details of how it is implemented internally could be C/C++/any other native language.
(I am intentionally not wanting to enter into a flame war of language prefences, C++ is really powerful, but it is also a bit scary as it is a much more complex language than C, and some things that look simple might have an impact on performance)
As Bjarne mentioned in [D&E] the effectiveness is one of the main goals of C++.
So C++ is slower only when programmer uses its "extra" functions like virtual functions you mentioned, rtt information etc
So I think it is more of psychological reasons - C is used as it doesn't allow "slow" C++ features.
Languages are not inherently faster or slower, interpreters and compilers might be more or less efficient.
Besides that, higher level languages provide abstraction layers that usually have a runtime cost. If you are not using them, the compiler might be smart enough to strip them out, but that might not be possible if the semantics of the language do not allow to do it safely... And if you need them, implementing them by yourself in a lower level language will be probably slower than using the "slow" language.
Say an OS/kernel is written with C++ in mind and does not "do" any pure C style stuff, but instead exposes the C standard library built upon a full-fledged C++ standard library. Is this possible? If not, why?
PS: I know the C library is "part of C++", but let's say it's internally based on a C++-based implementation.
Small update: It seems I've stirred up a discussion as to what is "allowed" by my rules here. Generally speaking: the C Standard library implementation should use C++ everwhere that is possible/Right (tm). I mostly think about algorithms and acting on static class objects behind the scenes. I'm not really excluding any language features, but instead trying to put the emphasis on a sane C++ implementation. With regards to the setjmp example, I see no reason why valid C (which would use either other pre-implemented in C++ C library parts or not use any other library functions at all) here would be violation of my "rules". If there is no counterpart in the C++ library, why debate the use of it.
Yes, that is possible. It would be much like one exports a C API from a library written in C++, FORTRAN, assembler or most any other language for that matter.
Actually, c++ has the ability to be faster than c in many ways, due to it's ability to support many translationtime constructs like expression templates. For this reason, c++ matrix libraries tend to be much more optimised than c, involve less temporaries, unroll loops, etc. With new c++0x features like variant templates, the printf function, for instance, could be much faster and typesafe than a version implemented in c. It my even be able to honor the interfaces of many c constructs and evaluate some of their arguments (like string literals) translationtime.
Unfortunately, many people think c is faster than c++ because many people use OOP to mean that all relations and usage must occur through large inheritance hierarchies, virtual dispatch, etc. That caused some early comparisons to be completely different from what is considered good usage these days. If you were to use virtual dispatch where it is appropriate (e.g. like filesystems in the kernel, where they build vtables through function pointers and often basically build c++ in c), you would have no pessimisation from c, and with all of the new features, can be significantly faster.
Not only is speed a possible improvement, but there are places where the implementation would benefit from better type safety. There are common tricks in c (like storing data in void pointers when it must be generic) that break type safety and where c++ can provide strong error checking. This won't always translate through the interfaces to the c library, since those have fixed typing, but it will definitely be of use to the implementers of the library and could assist in some places where it may be possible to extract more information from calls by providing "as-if" interfaces (for instance, an interface that takes a void* might be implemented as a generic interface with a concept check that the argument is implicitly convertible to void*).
I think this would be a great test of the power of c++ over c.
Given that "pure C stuff" has such a large overlap with C++, I fail to see how you'd avoid it entirely in anything, much less an OS kernel. After all, is the + operation "pure C stuff"? :)
That said, you could certainly implement certain C library functions using classes and whatnot. Implement qsort using std::sort? Sure, no problem. Just don't forget your extern "C".
I see no reason why you couldn't do it, but I also see no reason why someone would use such an implementation. It's going to use a lot more memory, and be at least somewhat slower, than a normal implementation...although it might not be much worse than glibc, whose implementation of stdio is already essentially C++ anyway... (Lookup GNU libio... you'll be horrified.)
Kernels like Linux have very strict ABI, based on syscalls, ioctls, filesystems, and conforming to quite a few standards (POSIX being the major one). Since the ABI has to be stable its surface is also limited. It would be a lot of work (particularly since you need a minimally useful kernel as well), but these standards could be implemented in any language.
Edit: You mentioned the libc as well. That is not part of the kernel, and the language of the libc can be entirely unrelated to that of the kernel, thanks to the aforementioned ABI. Unlike the kernel, the libc needs to be C or have a very good ffi for C. C++ with parts in extern C would fit the bill.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Well that may sound like a troll question, but since C++ seems hard to fully master (and I never really knew STL was actually "part" of it), I wanted to know what are the disadvantages to use C instead of C++ when not relying much on OOP.
C++ can have a very much sophisticated syntax sometimes, which is kinda confusing me while trying to use OGRE3D for example...
Non-OO features that C++ has that C does not:
Templates
Function overloading
References
Namespaces
You can use structs and enums without writing struct or enum before every declaration or using typedefs.
Even if you don't define your own classes, using C++'s string and container classes is still often more convenient and safe to work with than c-style strings and arrays.
Type safety (even though some would call it weak)
Exceptions
Variable declarations in conditionals, C99 only has it in for
I'm a big fan of C who over time has become a big fan of C++. One of the big reasons for that is the STL ( the Standard Template Library ) and Boost.
Between the two of them it makes it very easy to write powerful portable applications.
Why C++ is better than C? Besides the obvious list of features, in my opinion the real answer is that there's no good reason to still use C instead of C++. Even if you don't use OOP, you can use it as a better C. Even if you use just once a unique feature of C++ in your program, C++ is already a winner.
On the other hand, there's no disadvantage in using C++: it retains the performance goals of C and it is a quite low level language, while allowing very powerful things. And you will not miss any C feature using C++!
And don't forget the wide user base and the rich libraries and frameworks available.
By the way, C99 has added some interesting features but after a decade there's still very limited compiler support (so you are bound to ANSI C). In the meantime C++ evolved as well and the compiler vendors are committed to providing conforming implementations.
One "feature" that hasn't been mentioned much (but I think is noteworthy) is that the C++ compiler community seems to be willing to go to a lot more work to produce conforming implementations. Back when the standard that eventually became C89/90 was in work, nearly every compiler vendor worked at conforming with the latest drafts of the standard, and (especially when the standard was close to complete) really put a lot of work into conforming as closely as they could.
That's no longer the case. The C99 standard was (obviously enough) completed over a decade ago, but there's still basically only one implementation that makes a serious attempt at conforming with the whole standard (Comeau). A few others (e.g., gcc) have added some C99 features, but are still missing a fair number of others. One (pcc) is in the rather paradoxical position of having added nearly all of the features specific to C99, but doesn't come very close to meeting the requirements of C89/90.
Given the complexity of C++, producing a conforming implementation is a much more difficult task. Despite this, I'd guess there are already more implementations that are at least really close to conforming with C++ 0x (due to be ratified a year or two from now) than with C99 (ratified roughly a decade ago). Just to pick an arbitrary number, I'd expect to see 3 conforming1 implementations of C++0x sooner than 3 conforming implementations of C99 (in fact, I'd almost expect that many the day it's ratified).
Of course, "conforming" in this case means "to a practical degree" -- I'm pretty sure every implementation of C and C++ has at least a few defects that prevents perfect conformance. The same is true for most other languages, the only obvious exceptions being languages that are defined in terms of a particular implementation.
References are done automatically and much safer compared to pointers, the standard library is far more extensive, templates make code extremely customizable and substantially faster and safer. C++ offers fantastic code use/reuse and organization. Also, if you don't rely much on OOP, then you're doing it wrong. There's times when objects are not appropriate, but they're not the majority of scenarios.
One reason to write libraries in C is that it is very easy to use that library across languages since the C ABI is very simple, compared to the name-mangling mess that is C++ ABI.
Creating C interfaces to the C++ libs might be a decent solution, but if you can express your API easily with C syntax, why write it in C++ to begin with?
Many C99 features are very nice, and are still not in C++.
[Note: this is a subjective response but the question itself tends to invoke subjective responses by nature].
C++ is a multi-paradigm language and there's a lot more to it than OOP. However, to suggest it's simply better than C is a bit... bold. :-D In the hands of an experienced C coder, and for the right purposes, C code can be very elegant and simple. Consider the Lua interpreter which is coded in C; it compiles to a very small binary which would have likely been a lot bigger even in the hands of an equally skilled C++ programmer, and is therefore well-suited for embedded use. C generally won't be as safe (ex: implicit casting, requires manual resource cleanup, etc) which is one thing which C++ strives to do a little better than C, but it also won't burden the programmer with awkward casting syntax (in C++ one shouldn't need to cast often, but in C it's quite common), e.g.
On the other hand, and I'm trying to speak very generally, C++ can actually make it easier to write more efficient code, particularly for code that needs to work across multiple types. The qsort vs std::sort benchmarks are a classic example of this and how C++, through templates and inlined function objects, can provide cost-free abstractions. In C one would have to write a separate sorting algorithm for every type by hand or stuff it in a macro to achieve comparable results.
Most C++ programmers who migrated from C never look back. I might be an oddball, but I still find C to be useful for implementing small scale libraries. For a start, it's a bit easier to port and builds super fast. For these kinds of things, I take implicit casting for granted. I would hate to work with any C code on a large scale, however, and have unfortunately have to do this from time to time.
As for specific differences, sepp2k already pointed out a pretty comprehensive list.
You can continue to write essentially C code but compile it as C++ and get the benefit of stronger type checking, and therefore more robust code.
You can then if you wish introduce the useful elements of C++ that have nothing to do with OO, such as a built-in bool, function overloading, and better defined const handling (no need to use macros for literal constant symbols).
It is not even too much of a stretch to using some of the easier to understand and use elements of the standard library such as std::string and iostreams, and even std::vector as a "better array"; you do not have to learn much C++ or understand OOP to take advantage of these improved interfaces.
Between OOP an procedural programming there is an intermediate Object Based Programming, which C++ supports and which is simpler to understand and learn and almost as useful as full OOP. Basically it uses abstract data types rather than full classes and eschews inheritance and polymorphism. To be honest it is what many C++ programmers write in any case.
Other than the upsides that sepp2k noted (and I aggree with) it certainly also has some little downsides that have not directly to do with OO. Come to mind the lack of __VA_ARGS__ for the preprocessor and the context sensitivity. Consider something like:
switch (argc) {
case 1: /* empty statement */;
toto T;
case 2: break;
}
In C, whenever the compiler encounters such a piece of code, and argc and toto are known, this is valid. (Sure we might get a warning for the unitialized T afterwards, whence we use it.)
In C++ this depends on the type toto. If it is a POD, everything is fine (well, as fine as for C). If it has a constructor the code is not valid: jump to case label crosses initialization of 'toto T'.
So in some sense, for C++ you must understand the underlying types to see if a control flow is valid.
I got a comment to an answer I posted on a C question, where the commenter suggested the code should be written to compile with a C++ compiler, since the original question mentioned the code should be "portable".
Is this a common interpretation of "portable C"? As I said in a further comment to that answer, it's totally surprising to me, I consider portability to mean something completely different, and see very little benefit in writing C code that is also legal C++.
The current C++ (1998) standard incorporates the C (1989) standard. Some fine print regarding type safety put aside, that means "good" C89 should compile fine in a C++ compiler.
The problem is that the current C standard is that of 1999 (C99) - which is not yet officially part of the C++ standard (AFAIK)(*). That means that many of the "nicer" features of C99 (long long int, stdint.h, ...), while supported by many C++ compilers, are not strictly compliant.
"Portable" C means something else entirely, and has little to do with official ISO/ANSI standards. It means that your code does not make assumptions on the host environment. (The size of int, endianess, non-standard functions or errno numbers, stuff like that.)
From a coding style guide I once wrote for a cross-platform project:
Cross-Platform DNA (Do Not Assume)
There are no native datatypes. The only datatypes you might use are those declared in the standard library.
char, short, int and long are of different size each, just like float, double, and long double.
int is not 32 bits.
char is neither signed nor unsigned.
char cannot hold a number, only characters.
Casting a short type into a longer one (int -> long) breaks alignment rules of the CPU.
int and int* are of different size.
int* and long* are of different size (as are pointers to any other datatype).
You do remember the native datatypes do not even exist?
'a' - 'A' does not yield the same result as 'z' - 'Z'.
'Z' - 'A' does not yield the same result as 'z' - 'a', and is not equal to 25.
You cannot do anything with a NULL pointer except test its value; dereferencing it will crash the system.
Arithmetics involving both signed and unsigned types do not work.
Alignment rules for datatypes change randomly.
Internal layout of datatypes changes randomly.
Specific behaviour of over- and underflows changes randomly.
Function-call ABIs change randomly.
Operands are evaluated in random order.
Only the compiler can work around this randomness. The randomness will change with the next release of the CPU / OS / compiler.
For pointers, == and != only work for pointers to the exact same datatype.
<, > work only for pointers into the same array. They work only for char's explicitly declared unsigned.
You still remember the native datatypes do not exist?
size_t (the type of the return value of sizeof) can not be cast into any other datatype.
ptrdiff_t (the type of the return value of substracting one pointer from the other) can not be cast into any other datatype.
wchar_t (the type of a "wide" character, the exact nature of which is implementation-defined) can not be cast into any other datatype.
Any ..._t datatype cannot be cast into any other datatype
(*): This was true at the time of writing. Things have changed a bit with C++11, but the gist of my answer holds true.
No. My response Why artificially limit your code to C? has some examples of standards-compliant C99 not compiling as C++; earlier C had fewer differences, but C++ has stronger typing and different treatment of the (void) function argument list.
As to whether there is benefit to making C 'portable' to C++ - the particular project which was referenced in that answer was a virtual machine for a traits based language, so doesn't fit the C++ object model, and has a lot of cases where you are pulling void* of the interpreter's stack and then converting to structs representing the layout of built-in object types. To make the code 'portable' to C++ it would have add a lot of casts, which do nothing for type safety.
Portability means writing your code so that it compiles and has the same behaviour using different compilers and/or different platforms (i.e. relying on behaviour mandated by the ISO standard(s) wherever possible).
Getting it to compile using a different language's compiler is a nice-to-have (perhaps) but I don't think that's what is meant by portability. Since C++ and C are now diverging more and more, this will be harder to achieve.
On the other hand, when writing C code I would still avoid using "class" as an identifier for example.
No, "portable" doesn't mean "compiles on a C++ compiler", it means "compiles on any Standard comformant C compiler" with consistent, defined behavior.
And don't deprive yourself of, say, C99 improvements just to maintain C++ compatibility.
But as long as maintaining compatibility doesn't tie your hands, if you can avoid using "class" and "virtual" and the the like, all the better. If you're writing open source, someone may want to port your code to C++; if you're wring for hire, you company/client may want to port sometime in the future. hey, maybe you'll even want to port it to C++ in the future
Being a "good steward" not leaving rubbish around the campfire, is just good karma in whatever you do.
And please, do try to keep incompatibilities out of your headers. Even if your code is never ported, people may need to link to it from C++, so having a header that doesn't use any C++ reserved words, is cool.
It depends. If you're doing something that might be useful to a C++ user, then it might be a good idea. If you're doing something that C++ users would never need but that C users might find convenient, don't bother making it C++ compliant.
If you're writing a program that does something a lot of people do, you might consider making it as widely-usable as possible. If you're writing an addition to the Linux kernel, you can throw C++ compatability out the window - it'll never be needed.
Try to guess who might use your code, and if you think a lot of C++ fans might find your code useful, consider making it C++ friendly. However, if you don't think most C++ programmers would need it (i.e. it's a feature that is already fairly standardized in C++), don't bother.
It is definitely common practice to compile C code using a C++ compiler in order to do stricter type checking. Though there are C-specific tools to do that like lint, it is more convenient to use a C++ compiler.
Using a C++ compiler to compile C code means that you commonly have to surround your includes with extern "C" blocks to tell the compiler not to mangle function names. However this is not legal C syntax. Effectively you are using C++ syntax and your code which is supposedly C, is actually C++. Also a tendency to use "C++ convenience" starts to creep in like using unnamed unions.
If you need to keep your code strictly C, you need to be careful.
FWIW, once a project gains a certain size and momentum, it is not unlikely that it may actually benefit from C++ compatibility: even if it not going to be ported to C++ directly, there are really many modern tools related to working/processing C++ source code.
In this sense, a lack of compatibility with C++, may actually mean that you may have to come up with your own tools to do specific things. I fully understand the reasoning behind favoring C over C++ for some platforms, environments and projects, but still C++ compatibility generally simplifies project design in the long run, and most importantly: it provides options.
Besides, there are many C projects that eventually become so large that they may actually benefit from C++'s capabilities like for example improved suport for abstraction and encapsulation using classes with access modifiers.
Look at the linux (kernel) or gcc projects for example, both of which are basically "C only", still there are regularly discussions in both developer communities about the potential gains of switching to C++.
And in fact, there's currently an ongoing gcc effort (in the FSF tree!) to port the gcc sources into valid C++ syntax (see: gcc-in-cxx for details), so that a C++ compiler can be used to compile the source code.
This was basically initiated by a long term gcc hacker: Ian Lance Taylor.
Initially, this is only meant to provide for better error checking, as well as improved compatibility (i.e. once this step is completed, it means that you don't necessarily have to have a C compiler to to compile gcc, you could also just use a C++ compiler, if you happen to be 'just' a C++ developer, and that's what you got anyway).
But eventually, this branch is meant to encourage migration towards C++ as the implementation language of gcc, which is a really revolutionary step - a paradigm shift which is being critically perceived by those FSF folks.
On the other hand, it's obvious how severely gcc is already limited by its internal structure, and that anything that at least helps improve this situation, should be applauded: getting started contributing to the gcc project is unnecessarily complicated and tedious, mostly due to the complex internal structure, that's already to started to emulate many of the more high level features in C++ using macros and gcc specific extensions.
Preparing the gcc code base for an eventual switch to C++ is the most logical thing to do (no matter when it's actually done, though!), and it is actually required in order to remain competitive, interesting and plain simply relevant, this applies in particular due to very promising efforts such as llvm, which do not bring all this cruft, complexity with them.
While writing very complex software in C is often course possible, it is made unnecessarily complicated to do so, many projects have plain simply outgrown C a long time ago. This doesn't mean that C isn't relevant anymore, quite the opposite. But given a certain code base and complexity, C simply isn't necessarily the ideal tool for the job.
In fact, you could even argue that C++ isn't necessarily the ideal language for certain projects, but as long as a language natively supports encapsulation and provides means to enforce these abstractions, people can work around these limitations.
Only because it is obviously possible to write very complex software in very low level languages, doesn't mean that we should necessarily do so, or that it really is effective in the first place.
I am talking here about complex software with hundreds of thousands lines of code, with a lifespan of several decades. In such a scenario, options are increasingly important.
No, matter of taste.
I hate to cast void pointers, clutters the code for not much benefit.
char * p = (char *)malloc(100);
vs
char * p = malloc(100);
and when I write an "object oriented" C library module, I really like using the 'this' as my object pointer and as it is a C++ keyword it would not compile in C++ (it's intentional as these kind of modules are pointless in C++ given that they do exist as such in stl and libraries).
Why do you see little benefit? It's pretty easy to do and who knows how you will want to use the code in future.
No, being compilable by C++ is not a common interpretation of portable. Dealing with really old code, K&R style declarations are highly portable but can't be compiled under C++.
As already pointed out, you may wish to use C99 enhancements. However, I'd suggest you consider all your target users and ensure they can make use of the enhancements. Don't just use variable length arrays etc. because you have the freedom to but only if really justified.
Yes it is a good thing to maintain C++ compatibility as much as possible - other people may have a good reason for needing to compile C code as C++. For instance, if they want to include it in an MFC application they would have to build plain C in a separate DLL or library rather than just being able to include your code in a single project.
There's also the argument that running a compiler in C++ mode may pick up subtle bugs, depending on the compiler, if it applies different optimisations.
AFAIK all of the code in classic text The C programming language, Second edition can be compiled using a standard C++ compilers like GCC (g++). If your C code is upto the standards followed in that classic text, then good enough & you're ready to compile your C code using a C++ compiler.
Take the instance of linux kernel source code which is mostly written in C with some inline assembler code, it's a nightmare compiling the linux kernel code with a C++ compiler, because of least possible reason that 'new' is being used as an variable name in linux kernel code, where as C++ doesn't allow the usage of 'new' as a variable name. I am just giving one example here. Remember that linux kernel is portable & compiles & runs very well in intel, ppc, sparc etc architectures. This is just to illustrate that portability does have different meanings in software world. If you want to compile C code using a C++ compiler, you are migrating your code base from C to C++. I see it as two different programming languages for most obvious reason that C programmers doesn't like C++ much. But I like both of them & I use both of them a lot. Your C code is portable, but you should make sure you follow standard techniques to have your C++ code portable while you migrate your C code to C++ code. Read on to see from where you'd get the standard techniques.
You have to be very careful porting the C code to C++ code & the next question that I'd ask is, why would you bother to do that if some piece of C code is portable & running well without any issues? I can't accept managebility, again linux kernel a big code source in C is being managed very well.
Always see the two programming languages C & C++ as different programming languages, though C++ does support C & its basic notion is to always support for that wonderful language for backward compatibility. If you're not looking at these two languages as different tools, then you fall under the land of popular, ugly C/C++ programming language wars & make yourself dirty.
Use the following rules when choosing portability:
a) Does your code (C or C++) need to be compiled on different architectures possibly using native C/C++ compilers?
b) Do a study of C/C++ compilers on the different architectures that you wish to run your program & plan for code porting. Invest good time on this.
c) As far as possible try to provide a clean layer of separation between C code & C++ code. If your C code is portable, you just need to write C++ wrappers around that portable C code again using portable C++ coding techniques.
Turn to some good C++ books on how to write portable C++ code. I personally recommend The C++ programming language by Bjarne Stroustrup himself, Effective C++ series from Scott meyers & popular DDJ articles out there in www.ddj.com.
PS: Linux kernel example in my post is just to illustrate that portability does mean different meanings in software programming & doesn't criticize that linux kernel is written in C & not in C++.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Although people seem to like to complain about C++, I haven't been able to find much evidence as to why you would want to choose C over C++. C doesn't seem to get nearly as much flak and if C++ has all these problems why can't you just restrict yourself to the C subset? What are your thoughts/experience?
Joel's answer is good for reasons you might have to use C, though there are a few others:
You must meet industry guidelines, which are easier to prove and test for in C
You have tools to work with C, but not C++ (think not just about the compiler, but all the support tools, coverage, analysis, etc)
Your target developers are C gurus
You're writing drivers, kernels, or other low-level code
You know the C++ compiler isn't good at optimizing the kind of code you need to write
Your app not only doesn't lend itself to be object-oriented but would be harder to write in that form
In some cases, though, you might want to use C rather than C++:
You want the performance of assembler without the trouble of coding in assembler (C++ is, in theory, capable of 'perfect' performance, but the compilers aren't as good at seeing optimizations a good C programmer will see)
The software you're writing is trivial, or nearly so - whip out the tiny C compiler, write a few lines of code, compile and you're all set - no need to open a huge editor with helpers, no need to write practically empty and useless classes, deal with namespaces, etc. You can do nearly the same thing with a C++ compiler and simply use the C subset, but the C++ compiler is slower, even for tiny programs.
You need extreme performance or small code size and know the C++ compiler will actually make it harder to accomplish due to the size and performance of the libraries.
You contend that you could just use the C subset and compile with a C++ compiler, but you'll find that if you do that you'll get slightly different results depending on the compiler.
Regardless, if you're doing that, you're using C. Is your question really "Why don't C programmers use C++ compilers?" If it is, then you either don't understand the language differences, or you don't understand the compiler theory.
I like minimalism & simplicity.
Because they already know C
Because they're building an embedded app for a platform that only has a C compiler
Because they're maintaining legacy software written in C
You're writing something on the level of an operating system, a relational database engine, or a retail 3D video game engine.
Fears of performance or bloat are not good reason to forgo C++. Every language has its potential pitfalls and trade offs - good programmers learn about these and where necessary develop coping strategies, poor programmers will fall foul and blame the language.
Interpreted Python is in many ways considered to be a "slow" language, but for non-trivial tasks a skilled Python programmer can easily produce code that executes faster than that of an inexperienced C developer.
In my industry, video games, we write high performance code in C++ by avoiding things such as RTTI, exceptions, or virtual-functions in inner loops. These can be extremely useful but have performance or bloat problems that it's desirable to avoid. If we were to go a step further and switch entirely to C we would gain little and lose the most useful constructs of C++.
The biggest practical reason for preferring C is that support is more widespread than C++. There are many platforms, particularly embedded ones, that do not even have C++ compilers.
There is also the matter of compatibility for vendors. While C has a stable and well-defined ABI (Application Binary Interface) C++ does not. The ABI in C++ is more complicated due to such things as vtables and constructurs/destructors so is implemented differently with every vendor, and even versions of a vendors toolchain.
In real-terms this means you cannot take a library generated by one compiler and link it with code or a library from another which creates a nightmare for distributed projects or middleware providers of binary libraries.
I take the other view: why use C++ instead of C?
The book The C Programming Language (aka: K&R) tells you clearly how to do everything the language can do in under 300 pages. It's a masterpiece of minimalism. No C++ book even comes close.
The obvious counterargument is that the same could be said of most, if not all, modern languages -- they also can't tell you how to do everything in only a few hundred pages. True. So why use C++ instead? Feature richness? Power? If you need something more feature rich or powerful then go with C#, Objective C, Java, or something else like that. Why burden yourself with the complexities of C++? If you need the degree of control C++ grants then I argue to use C. C can do anything and can do it well.
I choose to write in C because I enjoy working with a small, tight language. I like having access to a standard which can be read in a reasonable amount of time (for me -- I'm a very slow reader). Moreover, I use it to write software for embedded systems for which few desirable C++ compilers exist (like some PIC micro-controllers).
In addition to several other points mentioned already:
Less surprise
that is, it is much easier to see what a piece of code will do do exactly . In C++ you need to approach guru level to be able to know exactly what code the compiler generates (try a combination of templates, multiple inheritance, auto generated constructors, virtual functions and mix in a bit of namespace magic and argument dependent lookup).
In many cases this magic is nice, but for example in real-time systems it can really screw up your day.
I'm used to use C++ for my projects. Then I got a job where plain C is used (a 20 year old evolving codebase of an AV software with poor documentation...).
The 3 things I like in C are:
Nothing is implicit: you see what your program exactly does or not does. This makes debugging easier.
The lack of namespaces and overloads can be an advantage: if you want to know where a certain function is called, just grep through the source code directory and it will tell you. No other special tools needed.
I rediscovered the power of the function pointers. Basically they allow you to do all polymorphic stuff you do in C++, but they are even more flexible.
Linus' answer to your question is "Because C++ is a horrible language"
His evidence is anecdotal at best, but he has a point..
Being more of a low level language, you would prefer it to C++..C++ is C with added libraries and compiler support for extra features (both languages have features the other language doesn't, and implement things differently), but if you have the time and experience with C, you can benefit from extra added low level related powers...[Edited](because you get used to doing more work manually rather than benefit from some powers coming from the language/compiler itself)
Adding links:
Why C++ for embedded
Why are you still using C? PDF
I would google for this.. because there are plenty of commentaries on the web already
Because they're writing a plugin and C++ has no standard ABI.
Long compile times can be annoying. With C++ you can have very long compile times (which means, of course, more time for Stack Overflow!).
If you want your code to be understood by virtually any programmer write in C.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned libraries. Lots of languages can link against C libs and call C functions (including C++ with extern "C"). C++ is pretty much the only thing that can use a C++ lib (defined as 'a lib that uses features in C++ that are not in C [such as overloaded functions, virtual methods, overloaded operators, ...], and does not export everything through C compatible interfaces via extern "C"').
Because they want to use features in C99 that don't have equivalents in C++.
However, there aren't as many C99 features that are useful to C++ as people think at first glance. Variable-length arrays? C++ has std::vectors. Support for complex/imaginary numbers? C++ has a templated complex type. Type-generic math functions? C++ overloaded the standard math functions, causing the same result.
Named initializers? Not in C++, but there's a workaround:
struct My_class_params {
int i;
long j;
std::string name;
My_class_params& set_i(int ii)
{
i = ii;
return *this;
}
My_class_params& set_j(long jj)
{
j = jj;
return *this;
}
template <typename STRING>
My_class_params& set_name(STRING&& n)
{
name = std::forward<STRING>(n);
return *this;
}
My_class_params()
{
// set defaults
}
};
class My_class {
My_class_params params;
public:
My_class(const My_class_params& p) : params(p) { }
...
};
This allows you to write things like:
My_class mc(My_class_params().set_i(5).set_name("Me"));
This is pretty shallow but as a busy student I chose C because I thought C++ would take too long to learn. Many professors at my university won't accept assignments in Python and I needed to pick up something quickly.
Because for many programming tasks C is simpler, and good enough. When I'm programming lightweight utilities especially, I can feel like C++ wants me to build in an elegant supersructure for its own sake, rather than simply write the code.
OTOH, for more complex projects, the elegance provides more good solid structural rigor than would naturally flow out of my keyboard.
Most of the significant features of c++ somehow involve classes or templates. These are wonderful features except for the way the compiler transforms these into object code. Most compilers use name mangling, and the ones that don't do something at least as messy.
If your system lives on its own, as is the case with many applications, then C++ is a fine choice.
If your system needs to interact with software not neccesarily written in C++ (most frequently in assembler, or Fortran Libraries) then you are in a tight spot. To interact with those kinds of cases, you'll need to disable name mangling for those symbols. this is usually done by declaring those objects extern "C", but then they can't be templates, overloaded functions, or classes. If those are likely to be your applications API, then you'll have to wrap them with helper functions, and keep those functions in sync with the actual implementations.
And in reality, the C++ language provides a standard syntax for features that can be easily implemented in pure C.
In short, the overhead of interoperable C++ is too high for most folks to justify.
Oh my, C vs C++, a great way to start a flame war. :)
I think C is better for driver and embedded code.
C++ has some great features that C doesn't have, but many of the object oriented features of C++ can cause monumental coding messes when people write code with non-obvious side-effects that occur behinds the scenes. Crazy code can be hidden in constructors, destructors, virtual functions, ... The beauty of C code is the language does nothing non-obvious behind your back, thus you can read the code and not have to look up at every constructor and destructor and so on. A lot of the problem is bad coding practices by SOME people.
My perfect language would be a combination of C99 plus a minimal subset of safer C++ capabilities that adds ZERO (or near zero) compiler overhead to the binary output. Perfect additions would be class encapsulation and naming concepts of data and functions.
One remark about "just use the subset of C++ you want to use": the problem with this idea is that it has a cost to enforce that everybody in the project uses the same subset. My own opinion is that those costs are quite high for loosely coupled projects (e.g. open source ones), and also that C++ totally failed at being a better C, in the sense that you cannot use C++ wherever you used C.
I haven't been able to find much evidence as to why you would want to choose C over C++.
You can hardly call what I'm about to say evidence; it's just my opinion.
People like C because it fits nicely inside the mind of the prgrammer.
There are many complex rules of C++ [when do you need virtual destructors, when can you call virtual methods in a constructor, how does overloading and overriding interact, ...], and to master them all takes a lot of effort. Also, between references, operator overloading and function overloading, understanding a piece of code can require you to understand other code that may or may not be easy to find.
A different question in why organizations would prefer C over C++. I don't know that, I'm just a people ;-)
In the defense of C++, it does bring valuable features to the table; the one I value most is probably parametric('ish) polymorphism, though: operations and types that takes one or more types as arguments.
I would say that C gives you better control over optimization and efficiency than C++ and hence would be useful in situations where memory and other resources are limited and every optimization helps. It also has a smaller footprint of course.
There's also the approach some shops take of using some of C++'s features in a C-like way, but avoiding ones that are objectionable. For example, using classes and class methods and function overloading (which are usually easy for even C diehards to cope with), but not the STL, stream operators, and Boost (which are harder to learn and can have bad memory characteristics).
Because you're writing for a system where resources are tight (such as an embedded system, or some kind real bare metal code like a kernel) and you want as little overhead as possible.
There's a reason why most embedded systems don't have a C++ compiler - it's not that people don't want one, it's that cramming C++ code into that small a space is task that approaches impossible.
Until some years ago the existing C++ compilers were missing important features, or the support was poor and the supported features vary wildly among them, and so it was hard to write portable applications.
Because of the no standard naming of symbols it is difficult for other languages/applications to support C++ classes directly.
What C needed was a better preprocessor.
cfront was one and thus born c++
I'ld use C, where the 'c++ as preprocessor' would not be okay.
I'm pretty sure, at the bottom of any well written c++ library/framework/toolkit,
you would find dirty-old-c ( or static casts, which is same )