The C/C++ fallacy
Every time I see "C/C++" in a job posting, tutorial title, or technical discussion, I die a little inside. This seemingly innocent notation represents one of the most persistent and harmful misconceptions in programming: that C and C++ are somehow the same language or close enough that we can lump them together with a forward slash.
They're not. And it's time we stopped pretending they are.
The great deception
The "C/C++" notation creates a false sense of equivalence between two fundamentally different programming languages. It's like saying "hammer/jackhammer" when discussing construction tools sure, they both hit things, but you wouldn't use them interchangeably or expect someone skilled with one to automatically master the other.
When developers casually drop "C/C++" in conversation, they're perpetuating a myth that has confused beginners, misled employers, and created unnecessary barriers to learning for decades. It's a linguistic shortcut that causes real-world problems.
The "Subset" argument is nonsense
The most common defense I hear goes something like this: "But you can compile C code with a C++ compiler, so C is basically a subset of C++!"
This argument is fundamentally flawed. By this logic, we should also refer to:
- "C/Rust" (since you can write C-style code in Rust)
- "C/Go" (since Go supports C-style syntax)
- C/Zig" (since Zig can compile C code)
- "C/JavaScript" (since you can write procedural code in JS)
The ability to write similar-looking code or achieve cross-compilation doesn't make languages the same or even related. It just means they share some syntactic heritage which is true for most modern languages.
A tale of two languages
Let me be crystal clear about what makes C and C++ different:
C is a minimalist systems programming language that prioritizes simplicity, predictability, and direct hardware control. It's the programming equivalent of a precision instrument every line of code does exactly what you expect, with no hidden complexity.
C++ is a multi-paradigm language that embraces complexity in service of abstraction. It's a Swiss Army knife that can handle object-oriented programming, generic programming, functional programming, and more. Modern C++ is closer to languages like Java or C# than it is to C.
These aren't variations of the same theme they're different solutions to different problems.
The beginner trap
Here's where the "C/C++" myth does real damage. I've personally fallen into this trap, and I've watched countless others stumble into it too.
Picture this scenario: A beginner wants to learn systems programming. They see a "C/C++ tutorial" and assume they need to understand classes, templates, inheritance, the STL, smart pointers, and the entire C++ ecosystem just to write a simple C program.
The result? They get overwhelmed and give up, or they learn a bastardized version of C that's neither good C nor good C++. They never discover that C, by itself, is actually a beautifully simple language that can be mastered without ever touching C++'s complexity.
This is educational malpractice disguised as convenience.
The modern reality
The gap between C and C++ has only widened over time. Every new C++ standard adds features that push it further away from C's philosophy:
- C++11 introduced lambda expressions and auto keyword
- C++14 added generic lambdas and variable templates
- C++17 brought structured bindings and fold expressions
- C++20 introduced concepts and modules
- C++23 continues the trend with even more abstractions
Meanwhile, C has evolved along its own path, maintaining its commitment to simplicity while adding features that make sense within its design philosophy.
Today's C++ programmer writing modern, idiomatic code is writing something that would be completely foreign to a C programmer. They're not using the same language with slight variations they're using entirely different tools.
The cultural divide
The programming community itself recognizes this distinction, even if our language doesn't always reflect it. There's a reason C programmers and C++ programmers often have different philosophies, different communities, and different approaches to problem-solving.
C programmers tend to value:
- Explicit control over implicit abstraction
- Simplicity over feature richness
- Predictable behavior over convenient syntax
- Direct hardware interaction over high-level abstractions
C++ programmers tend to value:
- Abstraction over explicit control
- Feature richness over simplicity
- Convenient syntax over verbose clarity
- High-level problem-solving over hardware details
These aren't just different preferences-they're fundamentally different programming philosophies that attract different types of developers.
The job market disaster
Nowhere is the "C/C++" confusion more damaging than in hiring. When a job posting lists "C/C++" as a requirement, it sends mixed signals:
- C developers wonder if they need C++ knowledge they don't have
- C++ developers aren't sure if they need low-level C experience
- Employers don't get the specialists they actually need
If you're hiring for embedded systems work, kernel development, or system programming, you probably want C developers. If you're hiring for application development, game programming, or complex software systems, you might want C++ developers. But you probably don't need someone who's equally expert in both-and such people are rare anyway.
The solution: precision in language
The fix is embarrassingly simple: use precise language. Instead of "C/C++":
If you mean C, say "C" If you mean C++, say "C++" If you genuinely mean both, say "C and C++" or "both C and C++"
This isn't pedantry-it's clarity. When we use precise language, we:
- Help beginners understand what they're actually learning
- Allow employers to find the right specialists
- Reduce confusion in technical discussions
- Respect the distinct nature of both languages
Time to move forward
The "C/C++" notation is a relic from an era when C++ was truly "C with classes." That era ended decades ago. Modern C and C++ are different languages with different purposes, different communities, and different strengths.
It's time we acknowledged this reality in how we talk about programming. The next time you're tempted to write "C/C++," stop and ask yourself: which language are you actually discussing? Then use that language's name.
Your readers, your students, and your future self will thank you for the clarity.
Programming is hard enough without unnecessary confusion. Let's stop making it harder with imprecise language that obscures more than it reveals. C is C. C++ is C++. Let's keep it that way.
⁂