[jb1991]

> C/C++

It has been several decades since putting a slash between these two made sense, lumping them together like this. It would be similar to saying something like Java/Scala or ObjectiveC/Swift. These are completely different languages.

[pjmlp]

Nope, that is a English grammar construct that is a shortcut for "and" and "or", as any good English grammar book will explain.

Indeed you see those for Java/Scala and Objective-C/Swift in technical books and job adverts.

Any search on the careers sites, or documentation, on companies that have seats at ISO, sell/develop C and C++ compilers, have such C/C++ references in a couple of places.

Do you need any example?

[1718627440]

In the general case yes, but "C/C++" became an idiom for the stance, that C and C++ are essentially the same, that C++ is a superset of C or that C++ is just the replacing successor of C and it should be treated as superseded. This is quite wrong and thus there is a lot of rightful intervention to that term. Personally I use "C, C++" when I want to talk about both without claiming, that they are the same language.

[pjmlp]

Nah, that is what pedantic folks without English grammar knowledge keep complaining about, instead of actually discussing better security practices in both languages.

It is a bikeshedding discussion that doesn't help in anything, regarding lack of security in C, or the legions of folks that keep using C data types in C++, including bare bones null terminated strings and plain arrays instead of collection types with bounds checking enabled.

[jb1991]

This has nothing to do with bikeshedding, it is a genuine misunderstanding of these two languages that is propagated in this way. This is not about grammar.

[pjmlp]

Yet those complaining usually make use of plenty C constructs, data types and standard library on their C++ projects, instead of modern C++ practices.

[1718627440]

"C-like" code in C++ still has C++ semantics. "modern C++" is a disputed paradigm, but not necessarily how things should be done. When you write C++, but not "modern C++", that doesn't mean you are writing C. There are also modern features in C. https://floooh.github.io/2019/09/27/modern-c-for-cpp-peeps.h...

[1718627440]

In my opinion, this is an important issue and not "bikeshedding", but it can be discussed whether the term "C/C++" is always an example of that idea or not. I think it is not, but it is connected enough, that I won't use it to side step the issues.

[pjmlp]

So there will be zero C language constructs, and C standard library functions being called, on your C++ source code?

[1718627440]

I mostly write C, but yes even a simple call to e.g. malloc has different semantics in C++ (you need to cast).

[jb1991]

Not in this context, that’s incorrect.

[pjmlp]

What context?

The pedantic folks that jump of their chair when seeing something all companies that pay WG21 salaries use on their docs?

If only they would advocate for writing safer code with the same energy, instead of discussing nonsense.

That is why C and C++ communities are looked down by security folks, and governments.

[tmtvl]

The problem is that it's a bit tricky to type the intersection symbol (∩), because C ∩ C++ makes more sense.