> , you have things like std::vector, and in terms of performance, everyone except MSVC supports VLAs in C++ anyway, and MSVC doesn't even support them in C.
They are not the same. VLA in C are on the stack vectors are allocated from dynamic memory (heap).
> Regardless, no one said anything about ABI compatibility being one of C++'s strengths.
Right but that is why in practice C++ it is not a strict superset of C. When having to interface with other parts of the systems (loading .so, .dlls) or integrating with scripting langauges, the interface still has to be wrapped in a C interface.
I didn't say that they were. I said that they were equally expressive, because the claim was that C++ is more powerful than C.
>VLA in C are on the stack vectors are allocated from dynamic memory (heap)
That is not necessarily true. It's an implementation detail, and as far as it's relevant, so is the fact that everyone supports VLAs in C++.
>Right but that is why in practice C++ it is not a strict superset of C
Nobody said that C++ was a strict superset of C. The claim was that C++ is more powerful than C, and the fact that you have to specifically request ABI compatibility is not evidence to the contrary. Rather, the fact that you can do this at all (and that you can't use C++ linkage in C) is evidence in support of it.
They are not the same. VLA in C are on the stack vectors are allocated from dynamic memory (heap).
> Regardless, no one said anything about ABI compatibility being one of C++'s strengths.
Right but that is why in practice C++ it is not a strict superset of C. When having to interface with other parts of the systems (loading .so, .dlls) or integrating with scripting langauges, the interface still has to be wrapped in a C interface.