Comment by Panzerschrek
7 days ago
Switching to C++ is relatively easy in an existing codebase. It's in many cases as simple as renaming a file from .c to .cpp. But for writing something from scratch it's better to use Rust.
7 days ago
Switching to C++ is relatively easy in an existing codebase. It's in many cases as simple as renaming a file from .c to .cpp. But for writing something from scratch it's better to use Rust.
Renaming c. to .cpp may work with ancient c89 code, but not with anything remotely modern. But while the code then is technically C++, it is not better. I still prefer C for new projects to any other language, because I value short compilation time and reduced complexity. For me, this translates in higher productivity and more fun. With modern tooling, also most C issues are detected early.
Slightly tweaking C code to allow it working in C++ is still much easier compared to full rewrite in some other language.
Slightly tweaking might not always be sufficient. Reengineering my numerical code would certainly a bit of effort. But anyhow, I do not think C++ is better. Recently I removed one (!) file with templates (which someone else added) from one of my project because it doubled compilation times (in a project with 750 other files or so). I do no need slow build times, more complexity, and more footguns.
> It's in many cases as simple as renaming a file from .c to .cpp.
That is rather optimistic, but, for example, scpptool has a feature [1] that auto-converts from C to a subset of C that can (hopefully) be compiled with clang++. If the original C source uses C11 extensions, clang++ seems to generally produce warnings rather than compile errors.
> But for writing something from scratch it's better to use Rust.
scpptool attempts to make C++ a more viable option by enforcing a memory and data race safe subset using a similar safety strategy.
[1] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTransla...