is C really more low level than C++

[adam2016]

So I've been learning how to program on and off for about 3 years now,

I first started with Java, I then changed to C++ as my overall goal was to learn how computers work at a lower level, recently I have encountered a few comments that implied C is lower level than C++ and if one wants to get a better understanding of how their underlying systems work they should use C rather than C++,

but isn't it true you can pretty much do everything in C++ that you can do in C, I wouldn't go as far to say C++ is a superset of C but it's close to it

so why would C be lower level if you can pretty much do everything you could in C with C++?

[Duthomhas]

C is not “lower level” than C++.

However, it is significantly smaller, and the C Standard Library lacks a lot of the higher-level constructs that C++ provides, like containers and algorithms.

Also, C++ is a superset of C — by design.
There are incompatibilities between the two languages, but by and large you should be able, with minimal refactoring, to compile a C program with a C++ compiler. If you wish to learn more, the following link is a very old one, but it is still a good one: http://david.tribble.com/text/cdiffs.htm

[edit] Fixed typo

[helios]

I would argue that C++ is capable of higher-level abstractions than C, while being capable of equally-low-level abstractions as C.

[againtry]

C is not “lower level” than C++.

Correct weight!

"A low-level programming language is a programming language that provides little or no abstraction from a computer's instruction set architecture."

So, C and C++ are both high level languages. The differences are far too complex, (or far too simple, if you like!) to make a bold statement that one is higher than the other on some fictitious perch or level.

http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#difference

[coder777]

C is actually lower level. Reason is especially the destructor and virtual functions. Besides the convenient stuff like operators.

[2z0kLyTq]

When you say low level what do you mean?

Does lower level imply that the code we write in C is easier to map to machine code than the code written in C++?

[malibor]

You can develop drivers with C++, that's enough low level compared to C which is also used for that job.

anything you can do in C you can also in C++, meaning that also makes C++ enough low level if needed compared to C.

well only assembly is more low leven than both C or C++. and compared to assembly both C and C++ are high level.

C++ is C on steroids, the biggest difference between them is that C++ is object oriented language while C is not, but that doesn't mean you need to use object oriented approach, you can as well write procedural code with C++, which is default for C.

all that said C++ does all the job that C does. so no C is not more low level in any way, it's only inferior.

but that doesn't mean C can't do the same thing as C++, it's only that code will be written in much different way, and likely in more hard/cumbersome way.

helios wrote:

I would argue that C++ is capable of higher-level abstractions than C, while being capable of equally-low-level abstractions as C.

exactly!, accurate and to the point.

[Duthomhas]

Vote to close because this topic gets primarily opinion-based answers.

[jonnin]

C and C++ are virtually identical in their ability to do low level coding.
modern c++ frowns upon some of these techniques, but the language and compilers and all do still support these language features.

C is unable to do the higher level things, though.

That makes c++ still the #1 best hybrid language that spans everything from near assembly level to advanced high level.