Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:8909 comp.software-eng:4041
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!abvax!iccgcc!klimas
From: klimas@astro.pc.ab.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Project experience with C++
Message-ID: <397.26c19b74@astro.pc.ab.com>
Date: 9 Aug 90 22:20:52 GMT
References: <812@agcsun.UUCP> <222.26a42b7d@astro.pc.ab.com> <13038@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <294.26b56ac2@astro.pc.ab.com> <1030@pi19.pnfi.forestry.ca> <350.26bd5757@astro.pc.ab.com> <CLINE.90Aug8165807@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu>
Lines: 42

In article <CLINE.90Aug8165807@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu>, cline@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu (Marshall Cline) writes:
> Unfortunately I must disagree with both statements.
> 
> [1] ``Smalltalk class library provides good library of exampoles of
>       how the C++ classes might be organized''

	The statement was intended as a suggestion for someone trying to figure
	out OOPS without any experience in laying out the art of laying
	out usefull class hierarchies.  The NIHCL is not available to most
	neophyte C++ programmers and as you point out some people disagree
	as to its appropriateness.  Rather than debate the ST class library
	issue, how about a good list of class libraries a neophyte C++ er
	should browse to help him understand how to lay out reusable
	class hierarchies.
 
> [2] ``The best C++ programmers I know learned OOP from Smalltalk initially''
> 
> I've heard this marketing hype too (from companies that specialize in
> Smalltalk training). 
	I'm impressed that you know the same C++ programmers that I do! <GRIN>
	Seriously, I believe that there is more than a coincidental
	relationship in this area.  Unfortunately it would do little
	to debate this without some sort of a statistical study to back it
	up so I'll back off for the sake of note bandwidth!

 > I just believe the supposed easy transition from Smalltalk to C++ is a myth. 
	I don't believe that anyone ever implied learning C++ was easy once
	one understood Smalltalk, the intent was to not have to hit the
	neophytes with the burden of learning OOP simultaneously with
	learning the syntax of C++.  The folks at Carleton University and
	some product oriented companies have strong opinions in this area.

> I've recently had to rescue a
> fairly large C++ project (over 14 million of lines of code in the previous
> language) from the mentality that you can squeeze Smalltalk methodology into
> C++.  For them (and for anyone programming-in-the-large, I believe), type
> safety is essential.
	I saw some confidential statistics on a large software project that
	indicated that strong typing in a rather large (~ 1 million lines of
	code) caught only 10% of the errors.  I believe that this is an area
	that others' contributions would be very helpfull in sorting out the 
	relevant issues from the noise.