Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!ncar!hsdndev!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!npw
From: npw@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Nicholas Wilt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ and waitresses (long)
Message-ID: <1991May31.134057.1798@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 31 May 91 13:40:57 GMT
References: <675518012.67@sunbrk.FidoNet>
Sender: steve@dartvax.dartmouth.edu (Steve Campbell)
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 36

In article <675518012.67@sunbrk.FidoNet> Michael.Schwartz.x1-6820@sunbrk.FidoNet.Org (Michael Schwartz x1-6820) writes:
>
>1) I'm glad to see that language bigots are getting the worst of this.
>We can't afford to be language bigots anymore.  So many solutions to
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>2) If you believe in very large programming projects (>1Megaline) you
>almost have to believe in Ada.  It works.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>3) If you believe in very large programming projects you have a hard
>time believing in assembly, fortran, and C.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What was that about language bigots?

I think the role of language choice is given too much emphasis here.
There are many large, successful projects written in all sorts of 
languages.  There are factors other than the language chosen which 
determine how successful the project is.

>5) If you believe in very large programming projects you learn to give
>up believing in code delivery before specification delivery.  In OOP
>terms, you must play object ping-pong before you believe your design
>will work.

This is valid even if you drop the "very large" qualifier, and even if
an object-oriented approach has not been chosen.

>Well, I feel better already.
>
>Michael
>-- 
>schwartz@pogo.den.mmc.com              "You'll find ... that the only thing 
>mschwartz@mmc.com                          you can do easily is be wrong, 

--Nick
  npw@eleazar.dartmouth.edu