Raz wrote:
> So here is an expert of who believes that you don't need C++ to
> program low level. C++ brings extra complexity that is not needed. C
> is #1 language to program in lower level. We can also add that you
> don't need C++ to program in higher level either, as you can use
> easier and better languages such as C#, Java, Ruby on Ralis, Perl,
> Python.
I chose to learn C++ because of the options it provides... the
complexity that you refer to. I can do old-fa****oned C, OOP, sequential,
functional, etc. I can do char arrays or use strings. I'm proficient in
Python and Ruby and I like them very much, but there are times when I
need native, compiled code for performance and efficiency reasons...
when that happens I normally use C++ in a C like manner. C++ does not
force me into a certain programming paradigm. That's what I like most
about it. I don't think it is a better C, IMO it's C with more
options... use them if you like, but you don't have to... and if you do
not need the additional options, then just stick with C. They are so
similar that it's not really worth arguing about.
Just my 2 cents,
Brad
|
