Re: "Linus Torvalds Was (Sorta) Wrong About C++"

From:

Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:24:09 -0500

Message-ID:

<XnsA45BEE10365E6myfirstnameosapriee@216.196.109.131>

Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> wrote in news:mdsrv1$gmf$2
@news.albasani.net:

On 12.03.2015 20:38, Christopher Pisz wrote:

Is catching errors at compile time rather than runtime "overhead" too?
I bet maintenance cost > overhead.

Which errors do you have in mind that C doesn't catch at compile time
but C++ does?

Are you kidding?

int n = 100;
long* p = malloc(n);
p[n-1] = 42;

---

enum a { a1, a2 };
enum b { b1, b2 };
void g(enum b arg) {}

g(a1);

---

// a.h
void foo(int x);

// a.c
// not including a.h
void foo(long x) {}

// main.c
#include "a.h"
foo(42);

ok, the latter is a linker error in C++, not compile time, but still much
better than a random error on random architecture

The list goes on, but the main point is that in normal C++ one does not
use known error-prone constructs like C-style casts, so more errors are
caught in compile-time even if the corresponding C-style code would
compile without errors in C++.

p.