Quickie Poll -- C vs. C++

Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:50 pm   

So, I'm working on a spare-time project that's off the back burner for
at least a day. It's a trainer, and I'd _like_ to be able to set it up
so that advanced students can do their own programming. Hence, the poll.

So, since anyone who responds to a dippy poll on USENET is obviously
100% representative of the embedded software engineering public, I know
that your responses will accurately reflect reality.

If you answer this poll you will _not_ be entered into a contest to win
an iPod, or a free smokeless cigarette, or anything else. So do it for
the glory, and to advance the state of the species.

Please don't fire up the C vs. C++ flame war -- we all know that Forth
is the best language in the world next to Python, so C vs. C++ is really
moot anyway.

What is your _preferred_ programming language for smallish (1000 lines
of code) projects? C? C++? Something else? What?

Why?

Would you describe yourself as being competent in both C and C++? If
only one, which?

What size processor(s) do you most often find yourself using? 8 bit?
16? 32?

What size of memory space do you most often find yourself using? Less
than 1kbyte? 1 to 8kbyte? 8 to 64kbyte? More than 64kbyte?

If you had to use someone's library code in your smallish project and
knew nothing about it other than the language it's written in, would you
be happier knowing it was in C, C++ or some other language?

Are you comfortable reading schematics of digital circuits?

Are you comfortable reading schematics of mixed analog and digital circuits?

If you can't read schematics, can you find your way around a block
diagram? Can you understand explanations of circuit behavior given by a
sympathetic hardware engineer?

Thanks.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:41 am   

On Aug 25, 2:50 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

I would have to say both. Since I use VC++ to build projects
involving PCB, I usually end up with at least one PC/VC++ program.


Visual Studio 5.0, if you consider it a language. Because I have it
and it's good enough.


Quick and dirty user interfaces.


Both, but I always stay with the C subset if possible. Just habit.


8 or 32. Nothing in between.


32K to 64K.


C is usually easier to pick up on. But once you are familiar with it,
you don't feel much differences between them. I have been using MFC/C+
+ libraries without thinking too much. On the micro side, it's almost
always C.


Yes.


Yes.


Yes.


Do I get a cookie at least?

Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:53 am   

In article <jpadnZIwv8-hDejRnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d_at_web-ster.com>,
tim_at_seemywebsite.com says...

Smooth talker... :-^


I have too many offers of this or laptops already.


Usually C


I have a lot of simple blocks (reuse) that makes it quicker to build up.
Especially for proofs of principle.


Competent in C, compotent in reading C++, to understand what others have
done. Very little of what I do seems to benefit from C++ for a quick
turnaround. Example TWO ASIC testers from purchase order to delivery
of full package built, cased and documented in under two months, that is
me doing everything, as well as other jobs.


Last ten years 16 now more 32bit as even small ARMS are generally
cheaper with wider choice of toolchains.


Now comes the killer question FLASH/RAM or Both?

Flash 8k to 512K, RAM from 1K to 2MB depending on type of application
from simple control to video data processing.


I would be happier knowing it worked and had sufficient coverage for
functionality to be useable. Efficiency also matters, not some library
made by a PC for everything which can just have more RAM and larger
processor to cope with bad design.


Yes


Most


I am usually the sympathetic hardware engineer to other programmers
and tend to document interface hardware and/or software (or comms
protocol).


--
Paul Carpenter | paul_at_pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate

Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:31 am   

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:50:17 -0700, Tim Wescott wrote:


For typical small PC projects: Perl, C, Bourne shell
For embedded projects: C, assembly


For small PC projects like reformatting data, doing regex
match and replace is easier in Perl than C, and Perl's
associative arrays are easy to use.


Both, but prefer C to C++.


Back in the day, used 6-bit IBM 1620 a couple of years, and IBM 1130 and
1800 briefly; 12-bit PDP-8 a lot (wrote time sharing and process control),
16-bit PDP-11 a lot (and other 16-bit - DG Nova, Honeywell DDP-516), the
occasional 24-bit Harris/Datacraft, some 36-bit machines (IBM 7044 and
7094, GE/Honeywell 645, Univac 1110), 48-bit CDC 3600 (wrote a CDC 6500
emulator on it, also wrote some assembly that unfortunately used a few
instructions the system engineers had removed the circuitry of), 60-bit
CDC 6500 (has 2 60-bit 6400-style CPU's and 10 12-bit PP's, vs the 6600's
1 faster central processor and 10 peripheral processors), Cyber 173.

Now, mostly using 8-bit micros and 64-bit PC's.


Less than 1KB on micros, 20KB - 2000KB program sizes on PC


If you mean include some code, I'd prefer C, Perl, Java, Python to C++.
If you mean include compiled binaries, the programming language
seems less important than the quality of documentation describing
the programming interface and the methods or algorithms. Actually,
that probably applies to source code packages as well.


Yes


Mostly


A what?

--
jiw

Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:23 am   

On 25/08/2010 22:50, Tim Wescott wrote:

C - but you better know C++


C is more compact and easy to understand in small progs


Both


8 for embedded.


8-64kB


C


Yes



Yes


I hope so

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:29 pm   

"Tim Wescott" <tim_at_seemywebsite.com> wrote in message
news:jpadnZIwv8-hDejRnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d_at_web-ster.com...

Somewhere between assembly and C. Assembly is compact and easy to
understand (if dry to read and write).

If you insist on only C vs. C++, then use the asm directive. ;)


C.


8


32k


Yech, assembly. A library written in anything else is just asking for
bloat...piled on top of bloat.


Yes


Yes


I can also write them ;-)

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:52 pm   

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:50:17 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim_at_seemywebsite.com> wrote:


Awk, specifically gawk (the GNU version). It's like a baby C, it's a
precursor to perl. The three letters of the name are the authors, and
the K is same person co-wrote C. (K&R). The language has some useful
quirks and to my mind can handle most jobs from one-liners to fairly
hairy log file filtering and 'real-time' firewall processing.

Old. well known, free, actively maintained, has its own comp.lang.awk
group.

I've written programs in both, worked on linux-kernel code.

On small stuff, 8bit I work in assembler. These days I work on Linux
or unix for higher level stuff and have no concern if the box is 32 or
64 bit.

8048 is tiny, as are the PIC chips. At the other end I don't care,
there's swap

C

Yup.

Yup.

That too.


Grant.

Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:23 pm   

On 25/08/2010 22:50, Tim Wescott wrote:


Modula2

(but you can use anything for 1KLOC or smaller projects even ASM)

Extremely robust compilers and static analysis testers available. Though
now a bit long in the tooth it is still good for mission critical code.
Catches many common typos and faults at compile time.

Both.

16 or 32 bit mostly (but sometimes 8 bit PICs).

Ada, Algol, Modula2, PASCAL or FORTRAN. If it has to be between C or C++
then C++ but using only a robust compact subset of the language. Some of
these languages tend to bring in the kitchen sink as bloatware.

Yes.



What is a sympathetic hardware engineer ;-)

Regards,
Martin Brown

Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:33 pm   

Tim Wescott wrote:



What is the best screwdriver: phillips or straight?


Being competent or incompetent is a quality of a person.
C/C++ is irrelevant.


Usually BGA, sometimes TQFP.


I use no more memory then needed. Sometimes I have to use less.


Which pen do you prefer: green, black or blue? Why?


Good schematics is a piece of art; bad schematics is a discomfort.


Blocks are for blockheads.


Are there any sympathetic hardware engineers?


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:23 pm   

Tim Wescott wrote:

REXX or C++, except when programming microcontrollers.

My productivity in REXX is about 10x that in any other language, but it
runs 100x slower than C/C++. Once I get out of the REXX league, I
generally use C++. I have a bunch of useful libraries that I've written
over the years.


Reasonably competent in both, though there are many, many C++ styles
that are almost distinct languages. I'm most comfortable in the
C-plus-classes-plus-templates subset. I generally don't use exceptions
or STL.


8 or 32.

All of the above. More often bigger, these days.


C. There are usually a zillion prerequisites for random C++ libraries.



North American ones. I've never had to bother with the opaque European
ones.

Sure thing.


Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:12 am   

On 26/08/2010 23:23, Phil Hobbs wrote:

That is a blast from the past! REXX was the native OS/2 scripting
language. I didn't know it was still going. Good while it lasted tho.

Are you by any chance the Hobbs of the Hobbs OS/2 archive or is it just
a coincidental name collision?

OS/2 was a fabulous operating system deliberately hobbled by an IBM
marketing department determined to make it fail to protect their
midrange system sales. In the end they lost both and more besides.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Fri Aug 27, 2010 10:17 am   

Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes:


Yes, I remember doing some scripting back in the 90s with REXX, in OS/2.
Nice language, as I recall.

Some old Commodore users remember it too, since it was included in
some Amigas. Well, it's still around. Debian Linux packages a REXX
interpreter called Regina, for example.


Wasn't it Hobbes? I always assumed it was named after that famous
philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Or alternatively, Calvin's tiger...

Fri Aug 27, 2010 10:49 am   

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:33:18 -0500 Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam_at_nowhere.com> wrote in Message id:
<3qqdnZbtjrbYCuvRnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d_at_giganews.com>:


That one's easy. Phillips. The screwdriver can't slide out when
tightening/loosening the screw.

Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:04 am   

C

Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:27 am   

On 27/08/2010 11:49, JW wrote:

And a green pen is better than a blue one or a black one - it stands out
better for commenting on printed documents, and it gives the reader a
warm fuzzy feeling that the notes are "green" and friendly.

Some of Tim's questions were vague and you can't give a decent answer
without more information. But I think they were interesting
nonetheless, and he has got some good answers. You wouldn't pick a
library based solely on the language it uses (though you might rule out
a contender based on the language). But it is certainly possible to say
that the choice of language may be a positive point or a negative point
when you are weighing up library choices against each other.