Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!bionet!agate!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Managing C++ Libraries: C++ too complex !!
Message-ID: <6590071@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 10 Nov 88 19:26:39 GMT
References: <179@tityus.UUCP>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 88

I have many sympathies with the comments here.

The present implementations of C++ in a world of 
.h .c files, cc's, nmakes, etc. leaves MUCH to
be desired.  The requirements for efficient
code development in C++ seem to overwhelm the 
traditional code development techniques used
in Unix.

I think we should admit C++ is still a little
early in its life as a practical development
tool.  People who choose to use it need to
realize they are jumping on the bandwagon early,
and that this has advantages and disadvantages.

Code reuse comes with code that was designed
for reuse.  Code that was not designed for 
reuse cannot be easily reused.  Whatever language
one uses, one needs to realize that 
reuseability has to be a deliberate design
goal for any code to be reused on future
projects.

I think C++ IS going to require a higher
skill level among its practitioners --
and I have no problem with that.  Although
I doubt all C++ programmers need to be
geniouses at writing code.  I think the
time for "amatuer" code pounders is rapidly
passing.  

...Maybe its possible to assign the better 
programmers to write the code that it is hoped 
will be reused in the future -- and have
the less experienced programmers write
the "application specific" portion of the
code -- that part of the code which is
going to go into this project, and never
used again.

I believe organizations are going to have
to head in a direction where a great portion
of the code on each project is reused.
Software is getting more and more competitive,
-- and with windowing systems is getting more 
and more complicated.  We are rapidly approaching
a point where one simple cannot afford to 
start from scratch on each new project!

I do believe that object oriented programming
has much to offer in the way of offering
reuseable software.  If one's software is
going to be used in a number of different
applications, one will need to be able
to offer a variety of different amounts
of resources to different programs.  Also
if ones software is at all sophisticated
it is going to be working on structures.
So when one has to deal with a varying
amount of structures, one is already dealing
with much of what we call "object oriented
programming."  The other goodies of C++
go towards supporting this goal.

I think people have got to realize the
switch over to object oriented programming
really is a major change from the function
oriented programming that has done in the
past, and is going to require major changes
in how a project does business.  For example,
probably management is going to have to 
support the idea of spending extra time and
money up front to fund the creation of some
really world-class, clean, reuseable libraries
oriented towards whatever task your organization
specializes in.  IE Quality doesn't come free
initially -- it requires some up front
investment -- which if done correctly rapidly
pays itself back.

If people in your organization don't realize
or support the idea that object oriented
programming really is a major change from how
software was made in the past, then you're
probably going to have problems.  Mixing
function oriented design techniques, and object
oriented design techniques tends to lead to
the problems of both.