Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!crovella
From: crovella@sunybcs.uucp (Mark Crovella)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ considered disenchanting
Keywords: C++,object oriented programming,C
Message-ID: <2010@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 17 Oct 88 13:52:03 GMT
References: <441@grand.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@cs.Buffalo.EDU
Reply-To: crovella@sunybcs.UUCP (Mark Crovella)
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science, and Calspan Corp.
Lines: 47

In article <441@grand.UUCP> day@grand.UUCP (Dave Yost) writes:
>
>[...]  I pulled away from the C++
>conferences because I became disenchanted with C++.
>
>[...]  C++ continues to amaze me with how hairy and
>complex it is.  I want a higher level language that
>is easy to read, relieves me of details, and lets
>me get on with the problem level.  I don't see C++
>answering that desire.
>
>Yes, strongly-typed object orientation seems like
>the right direction, but it can be a lot nicer than
>C++.
>
> --dave yost

Dave's observations are on target;  however, I am not sure
that his conclusions necessarily follow.  Our experience with C++
on a medium sized project (5000 lines) is that (a) most of the 
expected benefits of object orientation *do* accrue and
(b) a number of new problems crop up.  These problems are primarily
associated with readability and comprehesibility.  For example:
	1. It can take a while to determine which virtual
	   function will be invoked when the class hierarchy is deep.
	2. Constructor and destructor side-effects can be confusing,
	   e.g., when unrelated to the class itself.
These are minor points, but the overall result seems to be a perception
that the language is a bit "hairy".  

As for Dave's conclusion (i.e., a disassociation between himself and C++),
I think that in large part this may not be the fault of C++, but rather
in the toolset we use and in the orientation we have to programming in C++.
The problems we have had using C++ would be well solved through the use
of a more comprehensive programming environment for the language.

I propose a discussion of the necessary, appropriate, and/or ideal
tools and techniques for C++ programming.
For example, a tool to resolve virtual function scoping dynamically.
A "Flavor Inspector" -- a class examination tool.  An object inspector.
A dynamic debugger which runs C++ interpretively.  etc.

The questions Dave raises are important -- I think it would be interesting 
to hear people's views on them.
Mark Crovella           "Reflect, ponder, excogitate, reply." - J.Joyce
uucp:	  ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!crovella
internet: crovella@cs.buffalo.edu         bitnet: crovella@sunybcs.bitnet