Xref: utzoo comp.object:3589 comp.lang.c++:13661
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!dmg
From: dmg@ssc-vax (David M Geary)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ and waitresses (long)
Keywords: C++, objective-C (TM), Eiffel, software reuse
Message-ID: <4034@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 24 May 91 17:16:07 GMT
References: <2325@media03.UUCP> <1991May24.015856.9979@csusac.csus.edu>
Sender: news@ssc-vax.UUCP
Reply-To: dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David M Geary)
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics
Lines: 62

From uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!usenet Fri May 24 09:41:56 PDT 1991
Article: 3342 of comp.object
Path: ssc-vax!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!usenet
From: brian@babbage.csus.edu (Brian Witt)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ and waitresses (long)
Summary: C++ for applications; not longterm reuse
Keywords: C++, objective-C (TM), Eiffel, software reuse
Message-ID: <1991May24.015856.9979@csusac.csus.edu>
Date: 24 May 91 01:58:56 GMT
References: <2325@media03.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@csusac.csus.edu (News account (alt))
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Lines: 52
Xref: ssc-vax comp.object:3342 comp.lang.c++:13245

In article <2325@media03.UUCP> pkr@media03.UUCP (Peter Kriens) writes:

] I've built an objective-C (TM) translator (version 4).  I've looked at
] C++, and I've droolled at Eiffel.  You use the right language for the
] appropriate job.  If you want to write an application and the boss

  Although this has been asserted by many, I have always felt this to be
a fallacy.  Maybe my perspective is warped from too many years working
for large corporations, but decisions about programming languages are
rarely (IMHE) made by the right people for the right reasons.

] IMHO, C++ promotes building a typesafe object-based *application*.
] Longterm reuse is not high priority.  We're looking at building an

  I disagree.  The problem with C++, as I see it, is that it retains
compatability with C.  Many advocate using C++ "as a better C", and learning
OOP as you go along.  This kind of thinking produces wannabe (and thinktheybe)
"OOP" programmers who really have a poor grasp of OOP techniques.  Now in
a language such as Eiffel, you are *forced* to do *everything* in an
OOP manner, which, I believe is a good thing.
  I think it is more correct to state that "longterm reuse is not a high
priority with many C++ *programmers*."  However, most of the mechanisms
for longterm reuse are in the C++ language, and I have personally found
C++ very amenable to longterm reuse.  

] Even Ada has its place.  Many firms will fall in bed with C++.  Many
                          [1]
] will succesfully produce products.  It's the _final_ product that your
                                      [2]
] customers sees that determines that success.  However, there may be a
] lot of premature bald programmers around :-).

1)  Yes, may firms will "fall in bed" with C++.  Because it's the "right
    language for the appropriate job"?  Probably not.  Most likely many
    will choose C++ simply because it:

    a) is well known and is a successor to the immensely popular C.
    b) it is readily available, *now*, on most platforms.
    c) AT&T is behind it, which is related to a) and b).

2)  If you are in the software development business for the long term, then
    I don't necessarily agree.  IMHO, in addition to the final product, a
    good metric of how successfully an application has been written is the
    percentage of the application can be reused so that the next application
    can be produced in the shortest amount of time, and be of the highest
    quality.