Many people believe that C++ has useful features that improve the ability of the average programmer to write application programs. One problem is that different companies use different subsets. (The question of which language the Linux kernel should be written in is of limited interest.)
We could name a restricted subset of C++ as C+-. Many high quality and well-tested development tools for C+- already exist (the C++ tools). Now the problem remains of standardizing C+-. The most logical C+- variant to standardize on is the C++ subset used by the largest group of people, presumably the version defined by Google:
http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.x...
Now the question becomes is it easier for average programmers to build application programs using C or C+-? Using C+- or C? These are perhaps more useful questions than the long running C vs C++ debate.
We could name a restricted subset of C++ as C+-. Many high quality and well-tested development tools for C+- already exist (the C++ tools). Now the problem remains of standardizing C+-. The most logical C+- variant to standardize on is the C++ subset used by the largest group of people, presumably the version defined by Google: http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.x...
Now the question becomes is it easier for average programmers to build application programs using C or C+-? Using C+- or C? These are perhaps more useful questions than the long running C vs C++ debate.