C and C++: Siblings

Macros

C and C++ programmers view macros very differently. The difference is so great that it can be considered philosophical. C++ programmers typically avoid macros wherever possible, preferring facilities that obey type and scope rules. In most cases, C programmers don’t have such alternatives and use macros. For example, a C++ programmer might write something like:

const  int  mx = 7;

template<class  T> inline  T  abs(T  a)
{ return (a<0)?-a:a; }

namespace  N {
  void  f(int  i) { /* ... */ }
};

class  X {
public:
  X(int);
  ~X();
  // ...
};

A C programmer facing a similar task might write something like:

#define  MX  7

#define  ABS(a) (((a)<0)?-(a):(a))

void  N_f(int  i) { /* ... */ }

struct  X { /* ... */ };
void  init_X(struct  X *p, int  i);
void  cleanup_X(struct  X *p);

At the core of many C++ programmers’ distrust of macros lies the fact that macros transform the program text before tools such as compilers see it. Because macro substitution follows rules that don’t involve scope or semantics, surprises can result. Namespaces, class scopes, and function scopes provide no protection against a macro. Eliminating the use of macros to express ideas in code has been a constant aim of C++ (see Chapter 18 of [8]). A C++ programmer tends to view a solution involving a macro with suspicion and, at best, as a lesser evil. On the other hand, a C programmer often views that same solution as natural and often as elegant. Both programmers are right in their respective languages, and this is a source of some misunderstanding. Any solution to a compatibility problem that involves a macro is automatically considered suspect by many C++ programmers. Thus, any use of a macro in the Standard becomes a potential incompatibility as the C++ community looks for alternative solutions to avoid its use. The only macro found in the C++ Standard (besides those inherited from C) is __cplusplus.