Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!ames!elroy!usc!hacgate!ashtate!dbase!awd
From: awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++
Summary: I appreciate the debate
Message-ID: <111@dbase.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jun 89 20:59:28 GMT
References: <2689@ssc-vax.UUCP> <151@eiffel.UUCP> <9438@alice.UUCP> <1989Jun13.084057.2032@LTH.Se>
Organization: Ashton Tate Devlopment Center Glendale, Calif.
Lines: 29

In article <1989Jun13.084057.2032@LTH.Se>, newsuser@LTH.Se (LTH network news server) writes:
> 
> I do not like the current ``discussion'' between Bertrand Meyer and
> Bjarne Stroustrup.  I think it was wrong to start it, and I think... 
> 
> Dag Bruck

I disagree.  Yes, no one else on the net has anything but opinion to add to 
the discussion and the debate is more personal than factual.  By some limited
definition, the thread does not belong here because it is not suitable for a
textbook.  But why should we choose to define usenet that way?  Primarily,
because the channels would otherwise be clogged by unimportant chatter. I say
we must encourage important people to use this network, even for less than
important things--and I'm not convinced that this debate is unimportant.

_Any_ discussion between Bjarne Stroustrup and Betrand Meyer, no matter how
trivial, is interesting to me.  If Wirth and Ritchie started calling each
other names, I'd tune it to that, too.  Further, isn't the process by which
a new language achieves acceptance fascinating?  You rarely meet technical
people who say they enjoy either sales or politics, and yet those two 
activities have a huge influence on science and engineering.

What if we had a record of the things that Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla
said to each other?  Are arguments only important in historical hindsight?

/alastair/

Disclaimer: These are my opinions.  Ashton-Tate doesn't speak for me, and
I return the favor.