Is there something that I can do in C but I can't do in C++? [closed] - c++

Question

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed last month.
Improve this question
Is there something that I can do in C but I can't do in C++ ?
I stumbled upon the question in a sample interview questions site.

Answer 1

Declare a variable named 'class', as in:
int class = 0;

Answer 2

...that is there anything I can do in C but not in C++.
Both languages are Turing complete, so in theory you can code up equally functional applications in both.
OTOH, C++ is not a superset of C. Especially C99 has some features that C++ does not have. E.g. designated initializers, variable length arrays in structs and as automatic variables. Depending on your "anything", this could be something that C++ cannot do but C can.

Answer 3

In C, you can create array literals ("compound literal"), but in C++ you cannot
/* p points to the first element of an array of 4 int */
int *p = (int[]){1, 2, 3, 4};
You can also create an array with size not yet known at compile time, but C++ has no such possibility ("variable length array"):
// create array. size is known at runtime only.
int p[rand() % 5 + 1];

Answer 4

int new = 0;
works in C, but obviously can't work in C++ because 'new' is a reserved word.
There are some other 'tricks' with reserved words, but other than that, you can pretty much do everything in C that you can do in C++.

Answer 5

Quite a few things. For example, in C you can write code like this:
void * v = 0;
char * p = v;
and you can create arrays like this:
int main() {
int n = 42;
int a[n];
return 0;
}
neither of which will compile under C++.

Answer 6

C++ lacks C99's restrict qualifier. Therefore, there is no way to tell the compiler to perform optimizations based around knowing that pointers aren't aliases.

Answer 7

There are some things you can say in C wihch you can't in C++ (because C++ has stricter syntax-checking, and C has a more extensive 'legacy' syntax).
Also, there may be some run-time environments (O/S+library+compiler) which support C but not C++, so you can do C on those platforms where you can't do C++.

Answer 8

Syntactically there are a few things you could write in C that wouldn't compile in C++ (See Incompatibilities Between ISO C and ISO C++ for excruciating details.). If you're asking at a higher level, if there is some program that it's possible to write in C, but not possible to write in C++, then the answer is "No."

Answer 9

Actually, I can think of one example:
When you create a library (.lib file or .dll file) to be shared by other applications, you're better off using C instead of C++ because the results are more portable. You can do this within a C++ compiler by using an 'extern "C"' block though.
Specifically, C++ has a quirk where there is no standard convention for name mangling - for translating your library's function signatures into more low level names used by the compiler. So for example if you have a function like 'int addNumbers (int a, int b)', different C++ compilers may translate this function into different names, which can lead to problems when you want to import the library. If you use a C compiler or surround your library importing and exporting code with a C block though you won't see this problem, since there is only one way to mangle function names in C.

Answer 10

In 'C' you don't need forward declarations. This allows you to pass parameters which are interpreted incorrectly. (Not that this is a great feature, but you can't do it in C++)
in file A:
float sum(float a, float b)
{
return a+b;
}
in file B
main()
{
printf("%f\n", sum(1,2));
}
with C, this compiles, but prints 0.000
with C++, you need a float sum(float,float); before the printf, and it gives the expected result.

Answer 11

You can sparsely initialize arrays in C. I like to use it for mapping int->sometype for relatively dense static maps where an unmapped value can be interpreted as 0:
int my_array[] = { [1] = 3, [4] = 2 };
printf("%d %d %d\n", sizeof my_array, my_array[0], my_array[1]);
/* prints 20, 0, 3 */

Answer 12

The 1998 C++ standard has a list of incompatibilities with the 1990 C standard that is 13 pages long (Annex C). Granted, it's not a lot, compared to the amount of pages that describe the languages, but still covers quit a bit of ground.
Quick summary of the kind of differences that it lists:
New keywords are added (any C program that uses them as identifiers is not C++)
Type of character literal changed from int to char (compare sizeof('a') in C and C++!)
String literals made const (can't do char* q = expr ? "abc" : "de";)
"Tentative definitions" are removed from the language.
"Compatible types" are removed from the language.
Converting from void* to any other pointer now requires casting.
Converting from any const/volatile pointer to void* now requires casting.
"Implicit declarations" are removed from the language.
Expressions can no longer create new types (as in p = (void*)(struct x {int i;} *)0; )
results of some expressions became lvalues (compare sizeof(0, arr) for char arr[100];)
...that was the first 3 pages of Annex C.
If you go to the 1999 C standard, the differences are going to take forever to describe. Although C++0x did include some of C99 features, many of them are just inherently incompatible, like the complex type.

Answer 13

In C, you can declare variables with the following names:
bool, class, new, delete, template, typename, this, throw, catch,
typeid, operator, virtual, static_cast, reinterpret_cast,
dynamic_cast, mutable, public, private, protected, friend; //many more
then you can do these:
int namespace = private + protected + public;
int decltype = static_cast + dynamic_cast + reinterpret_cast;
int constexpr = (new + delete) * (template + typename);
All of them are keywords in C++11.

Answer 14

You can do almost everything in any of the programming languages. Of course the way of expressing it will vary, as well as the amount of code, clarity of code, ease of further maintenance. Some tasks can be coded with few lines in Prolog and few pages of code in C++, and so on.
Some limiting factors are the available libraries, available compilers, and low-level issues. However when you consider C and C++ on a typical PC, then there is no difference in things that can be done in either of them.
Unless of course you were asking for the differences between C and C++ - for these other people have given you the idea.

Answer 15

char *c = malloc(sizeof(char));
is valid in C, not C++ i.e. automatically casting void*. This of course is a syntax issue, not so much as what you can and cannot _do_ (i.e. accomplish).

Answer 16

If the criteria is to solve a particular programming problem then both will do the job although it may be a bit easier in some cases to do it in C++ due to the higher level of abstraction

Answer 17

Is this referring to the latest C standard? The original C standard (ANSI 1989 or ISO 1990, with 1995 updates) is fairly close to being a subset of C++. There's differences, but they're mostly contrived (the biggest exception probably being that void * converts freely with any data pointer in C but not in C++).
However, a new C standard came out in 1999, some time after I'd stopped doing anything in the most modern C. It had new features, some of which are going into the C++ standard due this year or next, but not all.

Answer 18

C++ is obviously not a superset of C for a very simple reason: New keywords have been added to C++
class, virtual, new, etc and thus can no more be used as identifiers in C++.
Some of the reasons are subtler.
You can find an exhaustive answer to this question on Bjarn Stroustrup's website:
The C++ programming language | Appendix B

Answer 19

C can have a function with an unspecified amount of arguments. Disclaimer that this is bad practice and shouldn't be used, but present and interesting nonetheless:
void x() { }
in C means a function with an unspecified amount of parameters. This is as opposed to
void x(void) { }
Which means a function with 0 parameters in C. In C++ both functions mean the same thing and take 0 arguments.
Using the unspecified parameter count in C, you could access the parameters the same way you would using variable arguments.
So:
void x()
{
}
int main()
{
// This line would compile in C and C++
x();
// This line compiles in C but not C++
x(5, 7)
return 0;
}
That is why you should try to write void as a parameter instead of leaving them blank. In C always explicitly write void so you don't have issues, and inC++ both are equivalent so it doesn't matter but it's nice to be explicit.

Answer 20

Many aspects of hardware-related embedded ("freestanding") systems programming are only possible in C.
[Major difference] In C you can do union type punning, which is done is pretty much every professional microcontroller hardware peripheral register map ever written. This is undefined behavior in C++.
In C you can use the de facto standard freestanding implementation-defined form of main() as void main (void). This is not allowed in C++ because of artificial restrictions. You must either have your bare metal C++ program return a value to la-la-land or name the procedure entered at startup something else than main.
When using structs allocated with static storage duration in C, you can have them quickly initialized with just a "zero out" (.bss initialization). Doing the same in C++ with structs/classes will mean that member variables get "zeroed out" too, but in addition default constructors will get called, leading to needlessly slow program startup.
[Major difference] In C you can declare const variables without initializing them. This is very useful for const volatile variables declared in EEPROM/flash, to be written to in run-time by bootloaders and similar. In C++ you are forced to initialize the variables, which in turn forces default values to get burned into EEPROM/flash, leading to slower programming time and slightly more physical memory wear.
[Major difference] No standard library function in C performs heap allocation silently/implicitly, apart from the malloc family (and in C23, strdup as well). In C++, silent heap allocation is very common in standard library functions, making those libraries unsuitable for embedded systems.
restrict pointers are possible to use in C for various micro-optimizations.
C allows pointers to VLA, which can help improving readability and diagnostics. On the other hand, C++ doesn't allow objects of VLA type, which is a good thing in embedded systems. C compilers can optionally refuse to implement certain aspects of VLA depending on their standard compliance (C99 vs C11/C17 vs C23 - C23 being the most suitable for embedded systems in regards of VLA).
C++ didn't support designated initializers until C++20 and these are quite handy to have in all manner of situations. (C++ does support initializer lists with named members inside constructors, however.)
C doesn't allow exception handling and I'd say that's a huge benefit in embedded systems. You'll want to avoid opening that can of worms inside your deterministic firmware. Error handling in C is rather handled gracefully by returning an error code from one module to its caller and then further down the line as needed. Instead of violently crashing down the dependency chain if left unhandled, just like the average run-away code bug would. It is however possible to write exception-free code in C++ too, if done with great care.
(Major) "Forever loops" is an important concept in programming, particularly so in embedded systems programming, where even empty loops with no side effects are common. And yet C++ doesn't support that. Optimizing away a "while(1);" in C++0x. A perfectly valid embedded systems program might look like init_interrupts(); for(;;){}. However, the C++ committee have apparently not taken such very common scenarios in consideration, so you can't write such programs in C++.
Benefits of C++ over C in hardware-related programming:
Inline assembler is standardized in C++, since C++ predicted that the programs written in it would get executed on computers. C did make no such prediction and so inline assembler/running your C program on a computer is not yet supported even in C23. It's just sad. (Similarly sad, neither language has a standardized interrupt keyword.)
C++ historically has a much better system for static assertions than C, which didn't support them proper until C11 (and further support is added in C23).
C++ guarantees a diagnostic message when doing implicit pointer conversions to/from void*. C does not. And void pointers are generally to be avoided in embedded systems.
You cannot call main() recursively in C++.
Conditional expressions with logic/relational/equality operators in C++ result in bool.
Character constants ('A') are of type char in C++, which saves a tiny bit of memory.

Answer 21

"If it can't be done in assembly, it's not worth doing!"
ok, humor aside, I THINK the OP is asking syntactically, rather than operationally.
I think that there are a few obscure things that are legal in C (at least C89) that are not legal in C++, or at least deprecated... But (if they exist) they're pretty obscure. C++ is functionally a superset of C.

Answer 22

C++ does not support named struct member initialization but in C you can do:
struct { int x, y; } a = { .x = 3 };
You can also combine this with the feature shown by Matt Havener:
struct { int a[3], b; } w[] = { [0].a = {1}, [1].a[0] = 2 };

Answer 23

The short answer is...no, not really. See http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#difference