In article <e...@4ax.com>, 
n...@nospam.invalid says...
> Hans-Bernhard Broeker <b...@physik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> 
> >Anton Erasmus <n...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >
> >> I just need to get my facts straight. I have been given a spec, where
> >> the use of C++ and a '51 core MCU is mandatory. AFAIC a C++ compiler
> >> for the 51 does not exist. 
> >
> >It does (see the other replies), but that's not really the answer to

<snip> 

> It is just difficult to see how the inefficiency could be justified by the
> limited benefits of C++ compared to C on the kind of system that will fit
> on a 51. 

There is at least the possibility that those who specified the system did 
not understand that C was a different language from C++.  You often see 
C/C++ referred to as if it were a single language and I seem to recall 
seeing C++ referred to in a context where the language being discussed 
was C.

Depending on your relationship with the people involved it may be worth 
discussing this (although I suspect you would already have done that if 
you expected it to be at all fruitful).  You might even be able to sell 
them on C as a subset of C++.

Robert

"nospam" <n...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:e...@4ax.com...
> Hans-Bernhard Broeker <b...@physik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>
> >Anton Erasmus <n...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >
> >> I just need to get my facts straight. I have been given a spec, where
> >> the use of C++ and a '51 core MCU is mandatory. AFAIC a C++ compiler
> >> for the 51 does not exist.
> >
> >It does (see the other replies), but that's not really the answer to
> >the problem.  That combination is like asking an architect to build a
> >family home with a fully service-qualified road inside to go from the
> >couch to the toilet in an 40-ton 18-wheeler.  It's completely crazy
> >idea.
>
> Poor analogy IMO. They specified a language which will run inefficiently
on
> the specified hardware.  People run interpreted BASIC on 51s is that
> completely crazy?
>
> It is just difficult to see how the inefficiency could be justified by the
> limited benefits of C++ compared to C on the kind of system that will fit
> on a 51.
>

You did not catch the point: a minimal C++ program (doing nothing yet) needs
more resources then is sensible to take from a 8051.

Of course, if you're going to use C++ as weird C without using any
objects, you can get by with an 8051, but what is the advantage
over plain C?

Like Cato the elder said: 'Ceterum censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam'
(By the way, Karthago ought to be destryed). Even risking a repeat:
DO NOT ATTEMPT IT.

The first C++ compilers converted the code into straight C which
was then compiled to the target object code. The converted C is
plain awful.

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

On 5 Aug 2004 11:12:53 GMT, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> Anton Erasmus <n...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Hi,
> 
>> I just need to get my facts straight. I have been given a spec, where
>> the use of C++ and a '51 core MCU is mandatory. AFAIC a C++ compiler
>> for the 51 does not exist. 
> 
> It does (see the other replies), but that's not really the answer to
> the problem.  That combination is like asking an architect to build a
> family home with a fully service-qualified road inside to go from the
> couch to the toilet in an 40-ton 18-wheeler.  It's completely crazy
> idea.
> 
> I'd interpret that spec as someone's sick try at a prank.

Sounds more like some junior, pointy haired middle management type whose
golfing buddy told him C++ was hip.

Bob
-- 
"Just machines that make big decisions
 programmed by fellas with compassion and vision."
					-D. Fagen
(remove yomama)

"Anton Erasmus" <n...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:g...@4ax.com...
> Hi,
>
> I just need to get my facts straight. I have been given a spec, where
> the use of C++ and a '51 core MCU is mandatory. AFAIC a C++ compiler
> for the 51 does not exist.
>
> Regards
>    Anton Erasmus

If you don't use any C++ features, it should be possible to generate code
that is no larger or slower than plain C. What specific C++ features does
the spec writer have in mind?

Bob

R Adsett wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> There is at least the possibility that those who specified the
> system did not understand that C was a different language from C++. 
> You often see C/C++ referred to as if it were a single language and
> I seem to recall seeing C++ referred to in a context where the
> language being discussed was C.
> 
> Depending on your relationship with the people involved it may be
> worth discussing this (although I suspect you would already have
> done that if you expected it to be at all fruitful).  You might
> even be able to sell them on C as a subset of C++.

Which it isn't.  So long as you realize that yourself before
putting on the spin.

-- 
"I'm a war president.  I make decisions here in the Oval Office
 in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." -         Bush.
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
 as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." -     James Rhodes.
"If I knew then what I know today, I would still have invaded
 Iraq. It was the right decision" -       G.W. Bush, 2004-08-02

CBFalconer wrote:
> R Adsett wrote:
> 
> ... snip ...
> 
>>There is at least the possibility that those who specified the
>>system did not understand that C was a different language from C++. 
>>You often see C/C++ referred to as if it were a single language and
>>I seem to recall seeing C++ referred to in a context where the
>>language being discussed was C.
>>
>>Depending on your relationship with the people involved it may be
>>worth discussing this (although I suspect you would already have
>>done that if you expected it to be at all fruitful).  You might
>>even be able to sell them on C as a subset of C++.
> 
> 
> Which it isn't.  So long as you realize that yourself before
> putting on the spin.
> 
Okay, I'll bite.  What features or language constructs
are in C that are not in C++?  I always thought that C++
was a superset of C and curious about why it isn't.

TTaylor

In article <2...@megapath.net>, Tom Taylor
<ttaylor@no_spam_ateng.com> writes
>CBFalconer wrote:
>> R Adsett wrote:
>> 
>> ... snip ...
>> 
>>>There is at least the possibility that those who specified the
>>>system did not understand that C was a different language from C++. 
>>>You often see C/C++ referred to as if it were a single language and
>>>I seem to recall seeing C++ referred to in a context where the
>>>language being discussed was C.
>>>
>>>Depending on your relationship with the people involved it may be
>>>worth discussing this (although I suspect you would already have
>>>done that if you expected it to be at all fruitful).  You might
>>>even be able to sell them on C as a subset of C++.
>> 
>> 
>> Which it isn't.  So long as you realize that yourself before
>> putting on the spin.
>> 
>Okay, I'll bite.  What features or language constructs
>are in C that are not in C++?  I always thought that C++
>was a superset of C and curious about why it isn't.

C has not been a sub set of C++ for some years.
Parts of C++ use the same syntax for different things.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England    /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ c...@phaedsys.org       www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <1...@corp.supernews.com>, Bob
<S...@excite.com> writes
>"Anton Erasmus" <n...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>news:g...@4ax.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just need to get my facts straight. I have been given a spec, where
>> the use of C++ and a '51 core MCU is mandatory. AFAIC a C++ compiler
>> for the 51 does not exist.
>>
>> Regards
>>    Anton Erasmus
>
>If you don't use any C++ features, it should be possible to generate code
>that is no larger or slower than plain C. 

You would thinks so but this is not the case.... The C++ compiler that
is available for the 8051 is nothing like as efficient as the C
compilers for the 51...  SO even if you use almost straight C on the C+
compiler the code will be much biger than the same C on a good C51 C
compiler.

>What specific C++ features does
>the spec writer have in mind?

Now there is a good question that should be closely followed by "why?"
ie why does he *NEED* those features.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England    /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ c...@phaedsys.org       www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Tom Taylor wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> R Adsett wrote:
>>
>> ... snip ...
>>>
>>> Depending on your relationship with the people involved it may be
>>> worth discussing this (although I suspect you would already have
>>> done that if you expected it to be at all fruitful).  You might
>>> even be able to sell them on C as a subset of C++.
>>
>> Which it isn't.  So long as you realize that yourself before
>> putting on the spin.
>>
> Okay, I'll bite.  What features or language constructs are in C
> that are not in C++?  I always thought that C++ was a superset
> of C and curious about why it isn't.

Many aspects.  Just to name a few:

                 IN 'C'                  IN C++
  '0'            integer const           char const
  //             syntax error            comment to EOL
                 unless C99 standard
  p = malloc(N * sizeof *p)
                 Best construct          requires a cast
  int new;       integer named new       syntax error
  sizeof('1')    == sizeof(int)          == 1
  <<             left shift operator     varies
  const int i;   i is protected from     i is a constant.
                 writing, but can be
                 overridden.

Inquiries in comp.lang.c will bring you many more.  The languages
are different, even though the common subset is not empty. 
Thinking of subsets will bite you.

-- 
"I'm a war president.  I make decisions here in the Oval Office
 in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." -         Bush.
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
 as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." -     James Rhodes.
"If I knew then what I know today, I would still have invaded
 Iraq. It was the right decision" -       G.W. Bush, 2004-08-02

"CBFalconer" <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4...@yahoo.com...

> -- 
> "I'm a war president.  I make decisions here in the Oval Office
>  in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." -         Bush.
> "Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
>  as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." -     James Rhodes.
> "If I knew then what I know today, I would still have invaded
>  Iraq. It was the right decision" -       G.W. Bush, 2004-08-02
>
>

goofy sig. IS it absolutely necessary in a programming NG to wear your
politics on your sleeve? Not to mention a sig that is nearly as long as the
posts...