Xref: utzoo comp.object:3606 comp.lang.c++:13686 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!media03!pkr From: pkr@media03.UUCP (Peter Kriens) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: C++ and waitresses (long) Message-ID: <2340@media03.UUCP> Date: 27 May 91 08:11:16 GMT References: <2325@media03.UUCP> Reply-To: pkr@media03.UUCP (Peter Kriens) Organization: Mediasystemen, Netherlands Lines: 102 Nick Sherman responds to my wiatress posting > >Which I think is proven by the fact that in any discussion with a C++'er, you > >will always hear the answer that you can also do it that way in C++. > It's nice if someone can think for only a few seconds, and come up with a > solution every time, instead of possibly wracking their brains for houre. > 1,000,000,000 Cobol programmers can't be wrong!!! A: I feel that you are confusing the fact that solving a problem is important and that your brain energy should be directed to the problem domain, and not in figuring out which is the optimum solution of the language. Almost all problems I see in the C++ group arise from the complexity of the language. You state that certain things are hadr/impossible to do in another language, while I can't see why you need to wrack your brains if there is usually a natural solution. > >I feel > >distracted because I have to spent so much time choosing and then later > >reworking because I made the wrong choice. > > Does this mean that you can line up maybe 5 ways of doing something, > determining which is best in terms of coding complexity, speed, memory usage, > etc, and implement it? I have had a few classes while in novation, right? ( > yeah, I know, but still....) First I often found that writing a class offered me better insight of where the problems were. In other environments this didn't cause as much trouble changing the design as it cost in C++. It seems you cast code in concrete >>When I look at other modern languages I see that they tend to remove the >>number of language options, but have a very generic simple concept. > Makes the programs easier to grade by instructors, really. Yes, but if a language is easy to teach, while not minimising the possibilities, isn't that a good thing? I believe there is something like Occam's razor which states that a simpler theory while still encompassing all the facts is better than a more complex... I guess this also applies to languages. >>Lisp and >>Prolog use lists and atoms and Smalltalk has the basic object. All of these >>languages seems to be able to get away with no language defined keywords, >>allowing the user to built constructs from a very simple syntax. > A after years of programming in anything? Do you like starting from scratch > with every new project??? Did you ever use one of these environments? It seems that reuse in these language is completely automatic. And why? I think because other people were able to built constructs, that are very easy to understand and reuse, the language does not get in the way. Especially in Smalltalk, you start on top of a big system. This would be bad if you could not change, but because the language does not contain keywords (or reserved words) you could even implement a false,true and maybe, on the same level as the original true and false. So I definitely do not like to start from Scratch, that is why I do not use C++. >>Isn't this big bag of options making the language extremely difficult to >>learn, as I can also see in the classes I teached C++, and will it not make > ^^^^^^^ > taught maybe...tsk tsk. :-) It is always nice to be criticized in an area where you are at a disadvantage because English is not your native tongue. Really relevant here. >>This way of thinking reminds of RISC versus CISC. They changed the CPU's to >>become much simpler, thereby offering more performance. Isn't C++ a CISL? > C? I meant Language... > The RISC and CICS debate is a different issue. The debate centers around > ease of implementation, testing, heat dissipation, die size, compiler > technology, marketing concerns, and a whole mess of other things. With the > C/C++, we are talking aesthetics, ease of use, etc. We already know that > just about every problem that can be solved in one language can be solved > in another (in possibly a totally different way), is it how pretty the code > looks that is the issue here. (BTW, we are not talking speed of computation > or execution in this discussion.) Do you mean pretty or readable and even more understandable? Because if you mean that I think C++ is at a big disadvantage. What I mean is that Matrix A = B + C, looks nice, unless you know there is a problem and you start looking what is happening, if you can find it. > I think the idea is that there are some people out there who are power > hackers. They want a language that can let them hack at a power level. > They want maximum options so they can explore new solutions... They want > maximum control... They want a lump of clay that can me molded into > anything. I think most of the other languages try to mold you. I agree that some people want a language like C++, but my question is will this contribute to better systems which are developed in a shorter time and will need less maintenance. I have been manager of 14 software people and I know how easy it is to get carried away with the fact that you overload the + operi]ator... But I dont think it has anything to do with productivity and quality. IMHO I think that you focus on the language itself instead of a language as an efficient tool to implement solutions. Peter Kriens pkr@media01.uucp