(Note: I am not asking about the definitions of pre-increment vs. post-increment, or how they are used in C/C++. Therefore, I do not think this is a duplicate question.)
Developers of C (Dennis Ritchie et al) created increment and decrement operators for very good reasons. What I don't understand is why they decided to create the distinction of pre- vs post- increments/decrements?
My sense is that these operators were far more useful when C was being developed than today. Most C/C++ programmers use one or the other, and programmers from other languages find the distinction today bizarre and confusing (NB: this is based solely on anecdotal evidence).
Why did they decide to do this, and what has changed in computation that this distinction isn't so useful today?
For the record, the difference between the two can be seen in C++ code:
int x = 3;
cout << "x = 3; x++ == " << x++ << endl;
cout << "++x == " << ++x << endl;
cout << "x-- == " << x-- << endl;
cout << "--x == " << --x << endl;
x++ == 3
++x == 5
x-- == 5
--x == 3
Incrementing and decrementing by 1 were widely supported in hardware at the time: a single opcode, and fast. This because "incrementing by 1" and "decrementing by 1" were a very common operation in code (true to this day).
The post- and predecrement forms only affected the place where this opcode got inserted in the generated machine code. Conceptually, this mimics "increase/decrease before or after using the result". In a single statement
the 'before/after' concept is not used (and so it does the same as
++i;), but in
printf ("%d", ++i);
it is. That distinction is as important nowadays as it was when the language C was designed (this particular idiom was copied from its precursor named "B").
This feature [PDP-7's "`auto-increment' memory cells"] probably suggested such operators to Thompson [Ken Thompson, who designed "B", the precursor of C]; the generalization to make them both prefix and postfix was his own. Indeed, the auto-increment cells were not used directly in implementation of the operators, and a stronger motivation for the innovation was probably his observation that the translation of ++x was smaller than that of x=x+1.
Thanks to @dyp for mentioning this document.