Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!male!grapevine!regenmeister!chrisp
From: chrisp@regenmeister.EBay.Sun.COM (Chris Prael)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: bridge building (was Re: Documenting OO Systems)
Message-ID: <1338@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>
Date: 15 May 91 18:27:23 GMT
References: <1264@telesoft.com>
Sender: news@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM
Distribution: na
Lines: 32

From article <1264@telesoft.com>, by rlk@telesoft.com (Bob Kitzberger @sation):
 
> All valid points, however, there are languages that _encourage_ good
> software engineering practices, e.g. separation of specification and
> implementation, strong type checking, inter-module dependency
> verification, etc.  C isn't one of them.  Can this honestly be denied?   

It is very easy to deny for the simple reason that you are not talking
about engineering practices, you are talking about software coding
practices.  Coding is not an engineers issue, it is a technicians
issue.

If you are willing to be accurate enough to assert that C++, for example, 
forces better CODING practices, there is no impediment to agreeing with 
you.  But any claims that mechanisms that operate on a technicians 
performance is erroneously putting software engineering on teh same
level as field engineering and custodial engineering.  I hope that is
not your intent.
 
> Yes, but insistence on using a tool that discourages engineering 
> discipline warrants justfication!  

The problem with your assertion is that the tool, C,  has no effect on 
ENGINEERING discipline.  It does have some connection with coding 
discipline.  In a real engineering environment, coding discipline is a 
very minor issue, if it is an issue at all.

Sure, C lets a software blacksmith be a real slob.  C++ can make the
software blacksmith a much tidyer blacksmith.  But neither of them can
turn a blacksmith into an engineer.

Chris Prael