Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ab46+ From: ab46+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew F. Boardman) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Readability of C/C++ vs. Readability of Ada Message-ID: Date: 16 May 91 23:43:37 GMT References: <72084@microsoft.UUCP>, <1991May16.172129.14877@ap542.uucp> Distribution: comp Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 29 In-Reply-To: <1991May16.172129.14877@ap542.uucp> >Many languages, and I think C++ or poorly written C are two good examples, >are easy to write and deal with for VERY GOOD programmers, and simply >impossible for the "underskilled and overwhelmed junior programmers" who >end up maintaining and enhancing to software. I would have to disagree with saying C++ is hard to maintain. I would argue, in fact, that C++ is easier to maintain than a lot of C code (especially well written C++ code), because of the OO nature of the design. I'm talking about C++ code that's written with C++ in mind (i.e. 99% of the code is in the data structures, etc). If C++ code is modularized correctly, even in the biggest projects the worst a maintainer would have to do is re-write an object. The OOP nature also makes debugging a lot easier. In the project I'm currently working on, one of the biggest things I'm keeping in mind is getting it modularized to the extent that even if almost all the sections of the program are changed around, the interface between the different objects would stay consistent. This means very maintainable code, and very powerful flexibility. --Andrew Andrew F. Boardman : ab46@andrew.cmu.edu Carnegie-Mellon University - Graduate School of Industrial Administration Raving Mad Lunatic Individualist, but Generally Nice