Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code

[James Kanze]

On Jul 20, 1:51 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> James Kanze said:

> <snip>

> > C was never really a good general purpose language.  It was
> > never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
> > example.

> So MS Windows is not commercial software? Interesting.

Yes.  Commercial can be used in several senses (and I'm not sure
of the usual English usage here).  There's a lot of software
written in C that is commercial in the sense that it is sold
(i.e. commercial as opposed to free software).  What I was
talking about, however, was the application domain.  You can't
really do accounting in C, for example, because it has neither a
built in decimal type (like Cobol), nor operator overloading on
user defined types (like C++).  More generally, C is pretty bad
for text handling as well.

Of course, a lot of early Unix systems only had C, and between C
and assembler, you used C, even if it wasn't the ideal language
for the job.  (Although the old X/Open group did try to
standardize a Cobol dialect for Unix.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software)             email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
                   Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34