I want to write a compiler for a custom markup language, I want to get optimum performance and I also want to have a good scalable design.
Multi-paradigm programming language (C++) is more suitable to implement modern design patterns, but I think that will degrade performance a little bit (think of RTTI for example) which more or less might make C a better choice.
I wonder what is the best language (C, C++ or even objective C) if someone wants to create a modern compiler (in the sense of complying to modern software engineering principles as a software) that is fast, efficient, and well designed.
The "expensive" features of C++ (e.g., exceptions, virtual functions, RTTI) simply don't exist in C. By the time you simulate them in C, you're likely to end up with something at least as expensive as it is in C++, but less known, less documented, etc. (let's face it: compiler writers aren't stupid -- while it's possible you can implement a feature "better" than them, it's not really particularly likely).
In the other direction, templates (for one example) often make it relatively easy to write code that is considerably faster than is practical in C. Just for one obvious example, C++ code using std::sort will often be two to three times as fast as equivalent C code using qsort.
Bottom line: the only reason for a C++ program to be slower than an equivalent written in C is if you've decided (for whatever reason) to write slower code. Common reasons are simplicity and readability -- and in most cases, those are more important than execution speed. Nonetheless, using C++ doesn't necessarily carry any speed penalty. It's completely up to you to decide whether to do something that might run more slowly.
C++ adheres to a "pay only for what you use" policy. You are not going to see performance hits due to the language choice; the performance of your application will be purely dependent upon your implementation.
Have you considered OCaml? Functional languages are well-suited for compiler writing. Pattern matching is an extremely useful construct, and the lack of side effects will make parallelization easy.
OCaml can be compiled to native code, and its performance is comparable to C and C++. Its standard library is somewhat lacking, but you don't really much else to write a compiler.
F# is a very similar language if you prefer a .NET environment.
People who write compilers in C as their basic language usually have the good sense to use tools for certain parts of it.
Specifically, go find out about lex and yacc (in their free implementations, flex and bison).
This advice almost certainly applies to any other language you choose, be it C++, Java or whatever.
I dont have any links but from what i hear and from experience C/C++ is a poor language to write a compiler with. First of all, do you really honestly need it to be scalable? Or scalable at this stage? Especially for a markup language? your not compiling 60+ mb of source so i dont think you actually need it to be scalable.
Anyways for my programming language i used bison for the parser (reading bison+flex is a must, try to avoid all conflicts my language has none). Then i use both C and C++ for the code. C because bison uses C and i just call a simple C function which creates and fill in a struct to create an abstract syntax tree. Then when its done it calls my C++ code that runs through the AST and generate the binary.
Standard ML is suppose to be really good with creating a language. If you dont use that a functional language is a good choice because it fits with the mindset (parsing may be left to right but your function calls wont be in that order). So i recommend that if you dont use bison (or know how to call it using C/C++ and bison).
Note: I tried writing a compiler twice. The first time in C without bison the 2nd time with bison. Theres no question that it would have taken me exponentially longer due to the fact that bison finds the conflicts for me and i am not doomed in debug land (i would probably in fact try to figure out a way to report conflicts before i write the code which is exactly what bison does)
Forget what programming language you use & also given that you have huge memory support in these modern computer era you could write good & fast programs using interpreted language and also very bad & slow running programs using C/C++ (compiled languages) & vice versa.
What is important is to use right data structures and algorithms & follow the style/patterns of the programming language you use to implement it. Remember that some one said "OO is not a panacea" & to the other extent some one else also said "show your data structures and I will code up the algorithm for the problem you are trying to solve".
Related
The problems parsing C++ are well known. It can't be parsed purely based on syntax, it can't be done as LALR (whatever the term is, i'm not a language theorist), the language spec is a zillion pages, etc. For that and other reasons I'm deciding on an alternative language for my personal projects.
Vala looks like a good language. Although providing many improvements over C++, is just as troublesome to parse? Or does it have a neat, reasonable length formal grammar, or some logical description, suitable for building parsers for compilers, source analyzers and other tools?
Whatever the answer, does that go for the Genie alternative syntax?
(I also wonder albeit less intensely about D and other post-C++ non-VM languages.)
C++ is one of the most complex (if not the most complex) programming language to parse in common use. Of particular difficulty is it's name lookup rules and template instantiation rules. C++ is not parsable using a LALR(1) parser (such as the parsers generated by Bison and Yacc), but it is by all means parsable (after all, people use parsers which have no problem parsing C++ every day). (In fact, early versions of G++ were built on top of Bison's Generalized LR parser framework Actually not, see comments) before it was more recently replaced with a hand written recursive descent parser)
On the other hand, I'm not sure I see what "improvements" Vala offers over C++. The languages look to attempt to accomplish the same goals. On the other hand, you're probably not going to find much outside of GTK+ written with Vala interfaces. You're going to be using C interfaces to everything else, which really defeats the point of using such a language.
If you don't like C++ due to it's complexity, it might be a good idea to consider Objective-C instead, because it is a simple extension of C, (like Vala), but has a much larger community of programmers for you to draw upon given it's foundation for everything in Mac land.
Finally, I don't see why the difficulty of parsing the language itself has to do with what a programmer should be caring about in order to use the language. Just my 2 cents.
It's pretty simple. You can use libvala to do both parsing, semantic analyzing and code generation instead of writing your own.
I about to take some courses in Pattern Recognition.
As i have no prior knowledge in either C or C++, my professors told me to learn a bit of one of them before the course, and learn more when doing the course.
Which one should i pick?
The prior knowledge in programming i have is limited to mostly C# but some PHP, SQL and Prolog as well.
The choice of a low-level language like C or C++ probably means you are into performance at the cost of the development time.
If this is your first low-level language, then learn C. It is simple, robust and proven language, and it allows to write the fast code. It has a decades long record of portability. It is much easier to integrate C code with code written in other languages. With C++ it is too easy to make things wrong. C++ requires much greater degree of language mastery and much more programmer's attention to make things right. While it is possible to write fast code in C++, it's more of an art than doing the same thing in C.
If you have only a few months to learn, then at the end you'll be able to write an OK C code, but this time is simply not enough to get enough experience with C++, hence your C++ code written in the first year or two will be awful.
See, for example, severe criticism of C++ from Linus Torvalds: C++ is a horrible language and C++ productivity. Basically, it boils down to C++ being too complicated even for professional programmers, and C++ code being ambiguous with context-dependent behaviour (this may be considered a higher-level language feature, but it makes more difficult to reason about the performance).
One of the major open source libraries for computer vision, OpenCV, is available both for C and C++, but it is also available for Python, which is a much easier language to get the things done quickly (and also to learn as a first language). BTW, I assume if you manage to offload most of the work to the library, which itself is written in C/C++, the performance cost of Python won't be huge (but generally Python is 10x slower than C).
Stroustrup (inventor of C++) argues that C++ is easier to learn than C:
There will be less type errors to catch manually […] fewer tricks to learn […], and better libraries available.
With that in mind, go for C++.
C and C++ are fundamentally different in the way they approach programming. If you have experience with C#, C++ would be a choice since it is object oriented as well. Also, even though they are different, knowing C++ will let you read (and mostly understand) C code as well. Also, check out this question for some information on the differences between these languages.
I would recommend learning C++ as this probably be easiest if you know about classes etc from C#. Also you can write free functions in C++ but is harder to write classes in C.
A standard library you will likely use is opencv.
C# will set you in good stead to master C/C++. You will probably be able to see through the opencv code examples and understand them.
You can likely get by with enough C you pick up from working through the examples and becoming familiar with them. The focus of the course will be on the algorithms and not how fancy your code is.
Sounds like a fun course! Good luck.
I am writing a program, more specifically a bootloader, for an embedded system. I am going to use a C library to interact with some of the hardware components and I have the choice of writing it either in C or C++. Is there any reason I should choose one over the other? I do not need the object oriented features of C++ but it does have a stronger type system. Could it have other language features that would make the program more robust? I know some people avoid C++ because it can (but not always) generate large firmware images.
This isn't a particularly straightforward question to answer. It depends on a number of factors including:
How you prefer to layout your code.
Whether there's a C++ compiler available for your target (and any other targets you may wish to use the bootloader on).
How critical the code size is for your application (we're talking about 10% extra maybe, not MB as suggested by another answer).
Personally, I really like classes as a way of laying out my code. Even when writing C code, I'll tend to keep everything in modular files with file-scope static functions "simulating" member functions and (a few) file-scope static variables to "simulate" member variables. Having said that, most of my existing embedded projects (all of which are relatively small scale, up to a maximum of 128kB flash including bootloader, but usually less) have tended to be written in C. Now that I have a C++ compiler though, I'm certainly considering moving to C++.
There are considerable benefits to C++ from simply using references, overloading and templates, even if you don't go as far as classes. Certainly, I'd stop short of using a lot of more advanced features, including the use of dynamic memory allocation (new). Then again, I'd avoid dynamic memory allocation (malloc etc) in embedded C as well if possible.
If you have a C++ compiler (even if it's only g++), it is worth running your code through it just for the additional type checking so that you can reduce the number of problems in your code. The C++ compiler can pick up on a few things that even static analysis tools won't spot.
For a good discussion on many invalid reasons people reject C++, see Dan Saks' article on Embedded.com.
For a boot-loader the obvious choice is C, especially on an embedded system. The generated code will need to be close to the metal, and very easy to debug, likely by dropping into assembly, which quickly becomes difficult without care in C++. Also C tool-chains are far more ubiquitous than C++ tool-chains, allowing your boot-loader to be used on more platforms. Lastly, generated binaries are typically smaller, and use less memory when written C style.
If you don't need to use Object Orientation, use C. Simple choice there. Its simpler and easier, whilst accomplishing the same task.
Some die hards will disagree, but OO is what makes C++ > C, and vice versa in a lot of circumstances.
I would use C unless there is a specific reason to use C++. For a Bootloader you are not really going to need OO.
Use the simplest tool that will accomplish the job.
Write programs in C is not the same as writing it in C++. If you know how to do it only in C++, then your choice is C++. For writing bootloader it will be better to minimize code, so you probably will have to disable standard C++ library. If you know how to write in C then you should use C — it is more common choice for such kind of tasks.
Most of the previous answers assume that your bootloader is small and simple which is typically the case; however, if it becomes more complex (i.e. you need to be able to load from an Ethernet port, a USB port, or a serial port...you need to validate the code that is being loaded before you wipe out your existing code, etc.) you may want to consider C++.
I have also found that the bootloader and the application typically share some amount of common code so you may also want to consider using the same language as your application to facilitate the code sharing.
The C language is substantially easier to parse than C++. This means a program that is both valid C and valid C++ will compile faster as a C program. Probably not a major concern, but it is just another reason why C++ is probably overkill.
Go with C++ and objchoose what language features you need. You still have full control of the output object code as long as you understand the C++ abstractions that you're using.
Use of OO can still run well if you avoid the use of virtual functions. Avoid immutable object types that require a lot of copying in order to pass values, like std::string. But, you can still use features like templates without any real impact on runtime performance.
Use C with µClibc. It will make your code simpler and reduce its footprint. Can be found in: www.uclibc.org.
I noticed some not so old VM languages like Lua, NekoVM, and Potion written in C.
It looked like they were reimplementing many C++ features.
Is there a benefit to writing them in C rather than C++?
I know something about Lua.
Lua is written in pure ANSI Standard C and compiles on any ANSI platform with no errors and no warnings. Thus Lua runs on almost any platform in the world, including things like Canon PowerShot cameras. It's a lot harder to get C++ to run on weird little embedded platforms.
Lua is a high-performance VM, and because C cannot express method calls (which might be virtual or might not) and operator overloading, it is much easier to predict the performance of C code just by looking at the code. C++, especially with the template library, makes it a little too easy to burn resources without being aware of it. (A full implementation of Lua including not only VM but libraries fits in 145K of x86 object code. The whole language fits even in a tiny 256K cache, which you find at L2 on Intel i7 and L1 on older chips. Unless you really know what you're doing, it's much harder to write C++ that compiles to something this small.)
These are two good reasons to write a VM in C.
It looked like they were reimplementing many C++ features.
Are you suggesting it's easier to implement polymorphism in C++ rather than C? I think you are greatly mistaken.
If you write a VM in C++, you wouldn't implement polymorphism in terms of C++'s polymorphism. You'd roll your own virtual table which maps function names to pointers, or something like that.
People are used to C. I have to admit that I'm more likely to write C for my own projects, even though I've been writing C++ since cfront 1.0.
If you want complete control over things, C is a little easier.
One obvious answer is interoperability. Any time language X has to call functions defined in language Y, you usually make sure that either X or Y is C (the language C, that is)
C++ doesn't define an ABI, so calling C++ code from another language is a bit tricky to do portably. But calling C code is almost trivial. That means that at least part of your VM is probably going to have to be written in C, and then why not be consistent and write the entire thing in C?
Another advantage of C is that it's simple. Everyone can read it, and there are plenty of programmers to help you write it. C++ is, for good and bad, much more of an experts language. You can do a lot of impressive things in C++, and it can save you a lot of work, but there are also fewer programmers who are really good at it.
It's much harder to be "good" at C++, and until one is good at it they will have a lot of bugs and problems. Now, especially when working on large projects with many people, the chance that one of them won't be good enough is much bigger, so coding the project in C is often less risky. There are also portability issues - C code is much easier to port across compilers than C++.
Lua also has many features that are very easy to implement in Lisp, so why doesn't it take that as a basis? The point is that C is little more than glorified assembler code with only a thin layer of abstraction. It is like a somewhat polished blank slate, on which you can build your higher level abstractions. C++ is such a building. Lua is a different building, and if it had to use C++ abstractions, it would have to bend its intent around the existing C++ structure. Starting from the blank slate instead gives you the freedom to build it like you want.
In many cases, code in C could be much faster than C++. For instance most of the functions in the stdio.c library are faster than iostream. scanf is faster than cin, printf is faster than cout etc.
and VMs demand high performance, so C code makes perfect sense, although the programs would most probably take longer to develop.
C++ is implemented in C. I suspect everyone was following the C++ approach.
Even though modern C++ compilers skip (or conceal) the explicit C++ to C translation as a discrete step, the C++ language has peculiarities that stem from the underlying C implementation.
Two examples.
Pointers in addition to references is entirely because of C. References are sufficient, and that's the way Java, Python and Ruby all work.
The classes are not first-class objects that exist at run-time because the class is only a way to define the attributes and method functions in the underlying C code. Class objects exist at run-time in Java, Python and Ruby, and can be manipulated.
Just a side note, you should look into CLR (Rotor-incarnation) and Java sources and you will note it is far more C++-as-C rather than modern or good C++. So it has a parallel there and it is a side-effect of abstracting for toys and making it average-performance happy for the crowd in managed languages.
It also helps avoid pitfalls of naive C++ usage. Exceptions and all other sort of things (bits David at boost consulting kicked off and more while we build sequencers and audio sampling before he even had a job :) are an issue too..
Python integration is another matter, and has a messy history in boost for example.. But for primitive data types and interfaces/interop and machine abstraction, well it is quite clear nothing beats C. No compiler issues either, and it still bootstraps many things before you get to anything as influential as it is/was/will be.
Stepanov recognised this achievement when he nailed STL, and Bjarne nailed it with templates.. Those are the three things always worth thinking about, as you don't have a decent incarnation of them in popular managed languages, not to that expressivness and power. All of that more than 20 years later, which is remarkable and all still bootstrap via C/C++.. Legacy of goodness (but I'm not defending 'dark age' C code c1982-2000, just the idea, yuo can misuse anything ).
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 )