Xref: utzoo comp.object:3577 comp.lang.c++:13625
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!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

In article <2325@media03.UUCP> pkr@media03.UUCP (Peter Kriens) writes:
> You can do it
>virtual, but you can also do it not virtual, but then you have problems
>there. You can make it static, but static in that context means something
>different in that context, you can use references or copying of values. It
>keeps forcing you to make decisions which hardly have anything to do with the
>problem domain, but are just a kind of goodies giving you certain
>optimisations in certain cases.

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
sez "use an object-oriented language" and Ada is too big, you choose
C++.  If you need reusable code for building a library to create a
string of applications, choose obj-C because the generalness will
promote reusability.  If you really want type checking, and lists
of "things" (parameter types) and don't mind drinking coffee during
compiles, choose Eiffel :-).

IMHO, C++ promotes building a typesafe object-based *application*.
Longterm reuse is not high priority.  We're looking at building an
application for school here.  We want lists of messages, and lists
of site locations.  Since these two "list content types" have nothing
in common (superclass wise), we have to build two List classes, one
for each kind of list contents we want to store.  We really want
parameterized types!!!  Does GNU G++ suuport this???

> It seems to me that that will hinder the reuse of
>software. If you look at the NIHCL library, it is build in a structure that
>is quite different from commercial available class trees.  Will that not mean
>that it will be very hard to reuse generic code.

>I am very curious about the opinion of other people about this subject. I do
>not want to just criticize. Some parts of C++ are elegant and allow for nice
>code, but I really miss the idea behind the language. I hope I am not right
>in my judgement. It would be such a waste of all the efforts that go into the
>language currently.

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

>
>	Peter Kriens
>	pkr@media01.uucp

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
         brian witt         |   brian@babbage.ecs.csus.edu
    You are what you click  |  (and if you click it twice...)
  Not representing Cal State Sacramento, the ECS dept, or Iraq