Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++
Message-ID: <6590138@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 2 Jun 89 18:25:50 GMT
References: <2689@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 33

Well, I'm not an Eiffel programmer, but I have read the Eiffel book.

I have heard rumers that there are a lot more problems in general with
compilers for Eiffel than with compilers for C++.  Perhaps someone can
illuminate.

>   I've been programming in C for about 5 years, and
> just recently started using C++.  I would like to
> start a discussion of Eiffel vs. C++.  I understand
> that both languages use C as a base language, and
> that both implement OOP features, and it seems as
> though the two have much more in common, aside from
> syntactic differences, than they have differences.

Both the only compiler for Eiffel and AT&T derived compiler
use C as an intermediate code to compile to.  This allows the
actual machine code generation to be performed on a C compiler for a 
given machine.

This is different than saying both use C as a base language. C++ syntax
is based on C.  Eiffel syntax looks Pascal-like -- at least to my eyes.
So I'd say C++ is to C as Eiffel is to Pascal.  I'd expect one's experience
comparing Pascal to C would carry over in comparing Eiffel to C++.

It appears [at least in reading the book] that Eiffel uses at least references
to objects, if not handles, rather than C++'s concept of a "object" being
the actual block of code.  So I'd expect C++'s ability to make a object
from other objects would be faster than Eiffel's approach [and Smalltalk's,
and ObjC's, and ...]

The Meyer book raises some interesting points about OOP, and I think it
makes a good addition to one's OOP library, but I'd stay with programming
in C++ -- if one has practical programming tasks to accomplish.