I believe that there is a thread in this forum where this issue is discussed:Oompa said:Does Dev C++ work with C?
Somebody gave you a bad suggestion. C++ has diverged from C for 20+ years now. C++ includes a substantial subset of C, but good C++ programs typically use different idioms than even good C programs. Transliterating a C program into C++ does not produce good results, no more than transliterating Assembly into C or Fortran into Pascal.Oompa said:I got a suggestion to start with C to learn Pointer Math before moving to C++.
I'm not sure, the computer engineering professor wouldn't say. He said they were moving onto something else besides C++ though. I guess there is going to be more popular throughout the industry in the next few years. (Tsui at University of Michigan)mikeblas said:I'm curious: what language is that?
mikeblas said:I'm still curious, then. If they're not a member of The Psychic Friends Network, how will they know what langauge will become more popular than C++ in the future?
Microsoft Introduces Highly Productive .NET Programming Language: C#
Microsoft Corp. today announced Microsoft® C # ( "C sharp" ), a modern, object-oriented programming language built from the ground up to exploit the power of XML-based Web services on the .NET platform, which was announced last week at Forum 2000. With its Visual C++® development system heritage, C # will enable millions of C and C++ developers to use existing skills to rapidly build sophisticated XML-based .NET applications.
Standardization and Licensing
In August, 2000, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, and Intel worked to standardize CLI and the C# programming language. By December, 2001, both were ratified ECMA standards (ECMA 335 and ECMA 334). ISO followed in April, 2003 (ISO/IEC 23271 and ISO/IEC 23270).
"based off of" isn't a very precise statement, but I don't think it has much to do with which language might have shipped first. C# is a language -- it can be implemented without the .NET Framework.w1retap said:Well then my original statement was correct if thats what they started off of.
Wikipedia is not an authorotative reference, and therefore useless to support a point.w1retap said:
w1retap said:zzz oh well, no need to argue over something that is written directly on microsoft's website and everywhere else.