[1718627440]

> Calling into malloc () is writing C in C++, and should only be used for backwards compatibility

And this is exactly the stance I am arguing against. C++ is not the newer version of C. It forked of at some point and is a quite different language now.

One of the reasons I do use malloc for, is for compatibility with C. It is not for backward compatibility, because the C code is newer. In fact I actively change the code, when it needs a rewrite anyway, from C++ to C.

The other reason for using it even when writing C++ is, that new alone doesn't allow to allocate without also calling the constructor. For that I call malloc first and then invoke the constructor with placement new. For deallocating I call the destructor and then free. This also has the additional benefit, that your constructor and deconstructor implementation can fail and you can roll it back.

[pjmlp]

So it would fail to compile when configuring static analysis to build on error when using C with C++ compiler.

Finally, people like to argue between C and C++ when it convenient to do so, yet the compiler language switches to use C extensions in C++ mode keep being used across many projects.

[1718627440]

> So it would fail to compile when configuring static analysis to build on error when using C with C++ compiler.

What do you mean? I don't think I can follow you.

> yet the compiler language switches to use C extensions in C++ mode keep being used across many projects.

When you use compiler extensions, that just happen to be both available in C and C++, I wouldn't say you are writing C in C++, I mean the extension isn't standard C either.

Code written in C++ has different semantics, even when it is word-for-word the same as C code. They ARE different languages.

[pjmlp]

Only when removing everything that C++ adopts from C, other than low level implementation details that cannot be done in any other way.

That is what writing proper modern C++ is all about, anything else is writing C in C++.

Null terminated strings with pointer arithmetic instead of std::string and string_view, pointer arithmetic instead of std::span, bare pointer arrays instead of std::array and std::vector, C style casts,....

[1718627440]

> That is what writing proper modern C++ is all about, anything else is writing C in C++.

That is a claim that is yours and I do not agree with that. C++ that does not fit your taste of modern C++ does not suddenly become C, it is likely a syntax error in C and when it compiles it has a different meaning. Code that may look to you like C in C++ has C++ semantics, that differs from C semantics.

[jb1991]

You can write Objective-C and C++ in the same source file, even mixing them in the same line of code, and it compiles together, but no one can say these are not two very different languages.

[pjmlp]

The name Objective-C++ exists for a reason.

[jb1991]

If you think Objective-C++ is a bonafide language in its own right rather than what it clearly is -- a convenience to use two very different languages together -- then there is no point trying to debate with you further.