At that point, why not write in C? Do they think it's C/C++ and not understand the difference?

> no recursion

Does this actually mean no recursion or does it just mean to limit stack use? Because processing a tree, for example, is recursive even if you use an array, for example, instead of the stack to keep track of your progress. The real trick is limiting memory consumption, which requires limiting input size.

▲

billforsternz a day ago | parent | next [-]

Semi serious idea: A lot of people (including me) write C++ but it's basically C plus a small set of really ergonomic and useful C++ features (eg references). This should be standardised as a new language called C+

	▲	zeroc8 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That probably would see more success than the monster they've created. I've been out of the C++ world for a while, but I hardly recognize the language anymore.

▲

mwkaufma a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For a long time, at least in MS and Intel, the C++ compilers were better than the C compilers.

▲

drnick1 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You may still want to use classes (where they make sense), references (cleaner syntax than pointers), operator overloading, etc. For example, a linear algebra library is far nicer to write and use in C++.

	▲	jesse__ a day ago \| parent [-]
		Function overloading is nice, too

▲

mwkaufma a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Re: recursion. She explains in her video. Per requirements, the stack capacity has to be statically verifiable, and not dependent on runtime input.